General Zinni on Sixty Minutes

Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/4/04 10:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes


Yeah you are right. I am ashamed of myself with my measly combat record of
50
missions over Germany being no match for the no-show Bush who hid in
Texas
while the Nam war war raged. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Is your own record the benchmark? If so the vast majority, including Al
Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. would not qualify.

President Bush fulfilled his duty. He is currently serving in one of the
most dangerous jobs around. Your mudslinging doesn't change that.

Jarg









Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes
From: "Jarg"
Date: 6/4/04 10:06 AM Pacific Daylight Time
Message-id:

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: General Zinni on Sixty Minutes


Yeah you are right. I am ashamed of myself with my measly combat record of
50
missions over Germany being no match for the no-show Bush who hid in
Texas
while the Nam war war raged. Mea Culpa. Mea Culpa.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


Is your own record the benchmark? If so the vast majority, including Al
Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, etc. would not qualify.

President Bush fulfilled his duty. He is currently serving in one of the
most dangerous jobs around. Your mudslinging doesn't change that.

Jarg


Once more, mea culpa mea culpa. I guess I am just not as good an American as a
guy who fialed to show up when it was required of him. I thought you got 20
years at hard labor forthat sort of stuff. One more point. Kerry went to war.
Bush hid in Texas.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Once more, mea culpa mea culpa. I guess I am just not as good an
American as a guy who fialed to show up when it was required of him.
I thought you got 20 years at hard labor forthat sort of stuff.


If he hadn't shown up for duty you can be sure he'd have paid the penalty.



One more point. Kerry went to war.


Any idea why he declined to serve his full tour?



Bush hid in Texas.


Bush's location was known. He could have been sent to Vietnam at any time.
How do you feel about Bill Clinton? He went to England without telling his
draft board.

It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Art, for one, is a "Big Government Liberal" who doesn't seem to realize that
yes, Totalitarianism is a necessary condition to support his Welfare State.
And his welfare checks.

Perhaps his generation has been trained to expect that the world now owes
them a debt of servitude err I mean gratitude . . .

Steve Swartz



"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...

Once more, mea culpa mea culpa. I guess I am just not as good an
American as a guy who fialed to show up when it was required of him.
I thought you got 20 years at hard labor forthat sort of stuff.


If he hadn't shown up for duty you can be sure he'd have paid the penalty.



One more point. Kerry went to war.


Any idea why he declined to serve his full tour?



Bush hid in Texas.


Bush's location was known. He could have been sent to Vietnam at any
time.
How do you feel about Bill Clinton? He went to England without telling
his
draft board.

It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How many
WWII veterans have done that?

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?

Walt

"WalterM140" wrote in message
...

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 19:38:45 GMT, Robey Price
wrote:

After an exhausting session with Victoria's Secret Police, "Steven
P. McNicoll" confessed the following:


Totalitarianism is a bit extreme, but a vote for Kerry, or any other
liberal, is certainly a vote against freedom.

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.

Robey

I've got to find myself on the same side of the fence (for this one
instance) as Juvat. Certainly characterizing a vote for a liberal as a
vote against freedom is ignoring the essentials of the two primary
ideologies in America.

Characteristically the liberal ideology is based on a belief that
government is the best solution to societal problems. Taken further
left we get to welfare statism, socialism and eventually at the
extreme communism. Examples of liberal approaches are things like
Social Security, Medicare, publicly funded education, etc. Often these
solutions are very effective.

Conversely the basic element of traditional convervatism is a
free-market solution, focussed on individual responsibility. Want
health care? Get insured. Want a retirement? Put something away. Don't
expect government to do it for you. These approaches can work as well.

Trends in liberal/conservative ideology is for liberals to support the
workers (unions) and conservatives to support entrepreneurs and
management. Liberals focus government spending on social programs
while conservatives tend toward strong defense ("guns vs butter").

Inevitably government programs cost money, so a liberal administration
will lead toward higher taxes, but this is usually balanced by
including some element of "redistribution of wealth"--the progressive
tax structure of the IRS, for example. This is acceptable to some
point as folks weigh the cost/benefit of dollars paid in tax against
service provided.

The conservative side of American politics, however, is split between
traditional (i.e. fiscal) conservatives and social conservatives.
Quite clearly the social conservative side of the ideology actually
can restrict freedom as much as the liberal in their desire to impose
a standard of morality no society as a whole. Good example is liberals
support gun control (loss of 2nd Amendment freedom) while social
conservatives support censorship, prayer in school, campaign finance
reform, and a high degree of homphobia--arguably losses of 1st
Amendment freedoms.

The reality of the situation is that both sides run to the extremes
for the primary season and then back to the moderate middle for
general elections. Both sides wind up compromising to build policies
that can pass the legislative process. Clinton was arguably a fairly
moderate Democrat and Bush 43 has espoused some clearly liberal
positions such as steel and plywood tariffs or federally funded
prescription drug programs.

Illuminated yet?


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

In article ,
Robey Price wrote:

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?

"Liberals" think we should leave nasty dictators in place forever and
let them kill and abuse millions, while "conservatives" think we should
kick out folks like Hussein and free those folks.

Tell us again about that "freedom" thing.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Robey Price" wrote in message
...

Exactly how is voting for ANY liberal a vote against freedom?


Simple. Liberalism is about controlling people and people that are
controlled by others are not free.



I anticipate an illuminating discourse...or not.


Oh, somehow I doubt you're open to illumination.

A vote for Socialism (in even it's weaker forms) is a vote for
Totalitarianism.

Socialism must be supported by the forced confiscation of the labor of the
citizenry. This is done by the power of the state. The power of the state
is embodied in Totalitarianism.

You can vote for "a little bit of Socialism" and many believe that the
"little bit of Totalitarianism" is acceptable, as long as hte resulting
Socilaism is "for the greater good."

These folks generally believe that there is a "sweet spot" in the tradeoff
between liberty and security.

So go ahead and answer your own question: is a vote for Kerry (or Bush, for
that matter) a vote for Totalitarianism?

Steve Swartz



"WalterM140" wrote in message
...
It's amazing how so many WWII vets risked life and limb to save the
French
from Totalitarianism, then scurry back to the U.S. and try to ram it down
our throats . . .

Why don't you elaborate on that statement some. Who is doing that? How
many
WWII veterans have done that?

When I vote for Kerry, is that a vote for totalitarianism?

Walt