"The New Soldier" by John Kerry et al

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Peter Skelton wrote:
:::
::::On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::::
::::Peter Skelton wrote:
::::
:::::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
::::
::::Where is your evidence for this?
::::
::::His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:::r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:::
:::There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:::going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:::transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:::fence the other way".
:::
:::OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
::
::Cite?
::
::It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
::asshole.
:
:I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
:skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.
:
:Right that's why you're reading this thread. You have a poor
:grasp on reality.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the feces you masticate
are not "reality".

::::Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
::::that's saying a lot.
:::
:::It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:::clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:::
:::Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
::
::Get out of my face, dumb****.
::
::Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
::take?
:
:Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.
:
:Nailed to the wall and fading fast.

Translation: "Fred's going to start ignoring my silly ****e again.
WAAAAAA!"

:::You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:::confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:::deny it.
::
::I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
::
::Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
::too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
::back down, choose up to three.
:
:Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
:and try to bury them in lies.
:
:????? Let's see. You're arguing that Bush's thought hasn't
:changed.

No, I'm not.

:I've responded that Bush says it has. You asked where I
:got it. I told you. Care to post a fact? Care to cite a lie I've
ut up here?

How about the immediately preceding statement?

:Face it Fred, when you don't like something you attack it without
:checking whether it's true or even favourable to yopur general
pinions. When you get trippped up, you go for invective but
:you're not very good at it.

Face it Peter, whenever you feel like it, you just spew specious
attacks, particularly when they're not true and you don't have a
supportable opinion. Even before you get tripped up, you go for
invective, but you're merely boring and widely recognized as the liar
you are.

::You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
::usual abusive tactics.
::
::You're easier to maneuver than most.
:
:Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
:that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
:simple.
:
:Should I point out who started the name calling in this thread?

Whatever you like. I'm sure it will be up to your usual standards
with regard to truth - in other words, you'll lie. And since I have
better things to do with my time than rehash threads, you'll proclaim
to all and sundry your 'victory'.

Knock yourself out, if this is the sort of pathetic thing it takes for
you to validate your own existence.

::If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
::have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
::the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
::
::Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
::might like it.
:
:I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
:such a problem buying hats....
:
:I quite agree you wouldn't like having a point.

Not like yours, at any rate. No room for you to keep a brain when
your head is shaped like that. Fortunately, in your case there was no
danger involved to any brain.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 15:43:47 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:56:14 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 03:32:24 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:39:16 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:::
:::Peter Skelton wrote:
:::
::::On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::::
::::Peter Skelton wrote:
::::
:::::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
::::
::::Where is your evidence for this?
::::
::::His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:::r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:::
:::There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:::going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:::transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:::fence the other way".
:::
:::OFCS, he's said so himself, don't you believe him?
::
::Cite?
::
::It was posted on this newsgroup less tahn a week ago, stop the BS
::asshole.
:
:I don't normally read pure political tripe, Peter, so I probably
:skipped it. You, on the other hand, appear to live to suck ****.
:
:Right that's why you're reading this thread. You have a poor
:grasp on reality.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the feces you masticate
are not "reality".

Now does that mean you were lying when you said you don't read
politics? It sure reads as if it does.

::::Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
::::that's saying a lot.
:::
:::It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:::clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:::
:::Fred, that's a ****ing bald-faced lie and you damn well know it.
::
::Get out of my face, dumb****.
::
::Why? You live to get into people's faces. Can deliver, can't
::take?
:
:Not interested. You're perennially too stupid to bother with.
:
:Nailed to the wall and fading fast.

Translation: "Fred's going to start ignoring my silly ****e again.
WAAAAAA!"

You've been ignoring the issue in this thread in favour for some
time.

:::You had no desire to clarify whatever - you just like
:::confrontation. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't try to
:::deny it.
::
::I see you're lying again. Why am I not surprised?
::
::Because you're too stupid to recognize the truth, because your
::too dumb to know what you do, because you're cornered and can't
::back down, choose up to three.
:
:Because you are such an inveterate liar. Again, you miss the facts
:and try to bury them in lies.
:
:????? Let's see. You're arguing that Bush's thought hasn't
:changed.

No, I'm not.

Then what in h*ll are you arguing?

:I've responded that Bush says it has. You asked where I
:got it. I told you. Care to post a fact? Care to cite a lie I've
ut up here?

How about the immediately preceding statement?

"I told you." is a truth, it's still up there for you to read.

:Face it Fred, when you don't like something you attack it without
:checking whether it's true or even favourable to yopur general
pinions. When you get trippped up, you go for invective but
:you're not very good at it.

Face it Peter, whenever you feel like it, you just spew specious
attacks, particularly when they're not true and you don't have a
supportable opinion. Even before you get tripped up, you go for
invective, but you're merely boring and widely recognized as the liar
you are.

I think that pretty much proves my comment about you being poor
at invective.

::You just make this claim because I decline to be shoved around by your
::usual abusive tactics.
::
::You're easier to maneuver than most.
:
:Yes, engage in your usual lying, abusive tactics and I'll point out
:that you're engaging in your usual lying, abusive tactics. Flat
:simple.
:
:Should I point out who started the name calling in this thread?

Whatever you like. I'm sure it will be up to your usual standards
with regard to truth - in other words, you'll lie. And since I have
better things to do with my time than rehash threads, you'll proclaim
to all and sundry your 'victory'.

That would be because you've lost again. There's a paralel post
in this thread. Where I ask you to cut the crap and say
something. Try saying something over there.

Knock yourself out, if this is the sort of pathetic thing it takes for
you to validate your own existence.



::If that's "like confrontation", then yeah, you
::have a point. But it is a definition in keeping with the stupidity of
::the rest of your views, so I hardly think its applicable.
::
::Yes I have a point. I almost always do. You should try it, you
::might like it.
:
:I don't think so. However, your 'point' does explain why you have
:such a problem buying hats....
:
:I quite agree you wouldn't like having a point.

Not like yours, at any rate. No room for you to keep a brain when
your head is shaped like that. Fortunately, in your case there was no
danger involved to any brain.

A bit out of control, are you?

Peter Skelton

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote:
::
::
::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
m...
:: Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:: wrote:
:: :
:: :Peter Skelton wrote:
:: :
:: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:: :
:: :Where is your evidence for this?
:: :
:: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
::
:: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:: fence the other way".
::
:: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:: :that's saying a lot.
::
:: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
::
::Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
::stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
::
::The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
::Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
::has been constant
:
:No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
:
:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,

No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.

Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
criminals.

For Bush to have "crossed the fend going the other way", he would have
had to go from being actively anti-military to being pro-military.

There is no evidence for that position. Therefore, your original
remark is incorrect.

:you've objected to that.

No. In fact, when I objected to what you actually said, I remarked
that AT MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
at the time) to being much more pro-military. This is the point at
which you started insulting me.

:The implication seems to be either that
:you think he's gone the other way (a bit absurd even for you, but
:I did cover it off) or that you think he hasn't progressed.

The implication is that your original statement was incorrect and I
said it was incorrect and that you are now lying about events.

: I'd
:mention that you have a poor grip on reality, but I've already
:done that.

Yes, this is your initial response any time someone points out that
you're on your ass, as usual.

:Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
:you're such an inveterate liar.
:
:I've already responded to this, you are a bit repetitive.

So are you. Trying once again to prove that Goebbels was right and
that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be the truth?

:Let's cut the crap. Do you think Bush's attitude to the military
:has changed positively since his National Guard service? If you
:think yes,

Most likely yes, but the evidence isn't there to state it with
absolute certainty (barring your claims about some old article here
that, frankly, I can't be bothered to go back and hunt for - I
generally skip posts of news articles, because they're so often posted
by loons with an axe to grind).

:then what are you carrying on about?

See above, where I explain how your original statement was simply
wrong.

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote:
::
::
::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
om...
:: Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:: wrote:
:: :
:: :Peter Skelton wrote:
:: :
:: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:: :
:: :Where is your evidence for this?
:: :
:: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
::
:: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:: fence the other way".
::
:: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:: :that's saying a lot.
::
:: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
::
::Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
::stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
::
::The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
::Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
::has been constant
:
:No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
:
:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,

No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.

Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
criminals.

In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
said.
Now we know what your problem is. Go away and learn something
about the subject.

Peter Skelton

This is the long answer

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote:
::
::
::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
om...
:: Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
:: wrote:
:: :
:: :Peter Skelton wrote:
:: :
:: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
:: :
:: :Where is your evidence for this?
:: :
:: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
:: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
::
:: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
:: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
:: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
:: fence the other way".
::
:: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
:: :that's saying a lot.
::
:: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
:: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
::
::Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
::stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
::
::The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
::Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
::has been constant
:
:No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
:
:I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,

No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.

That's right, you're doing fine

Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
criminals.

Nope. That's the rhetoric from the other side and it makes ablout
as much sense checked against reality as the Bush was a service
evader/awol etc. etc. junk.

For Bush to have "crossed the fend going the other way", he would have
had to go from being actively anti-military to being pro-military.

Nope

There is no evidence for that position. Therefore, your original
remark is incorrect.

Nope. You've based everything on bs.

:you've objected to that.

No. In fact, when I objected to what you actually said, I remarked
that AT MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
at the time) to being much more pro-military. This is the point at
which you started insulting me.

I think you'll find insults from one F. McCall in the previous
post.

I'd be interested in seeing your remark th the effect that "AT
MOST Bush had gone from being not enamoured of military
service (although by all accounts he scored as a pretty good officer
at the time) to being much more pro-military"

:The implication seems to be either that
:you think he's gone the other way (a bit absurd even for you, but
:I did cover it off) or that you think he hasn't progressed.

The implication is that your original statement was incorrect and I
said it was incorrect and that you are now lying about events.

Nope.

: I'd
:mention that you have a poor grip on reality, but I've already
:done that.

Yes, this is your initial response any time someone points out that
you're on your ass, as usual.

nope

:Oh, wait. Those probably aren't the problem. The problem is that
:you're such an inveterate liar.
:
:I've already responded to this, you are a bit repetitive.

So are you. Trying once again to prove that Goebbels was right and
that if you repeat a lie often enough it will be the truth?

nope

:Let's cut the crap. Do you think Bush's attitude to the military
:has changed positively since his National Guard service? If you
:think yes,

Most likely yes, but the evidence isn't there to state it with
absolute certainty (barring your claims about some old article here
that, frankly, I can't be bothered to go back and hunt for - I
generally skip posts of news articles, because they're so often posted
by loons with an axe to grind).

:then what are you carrying on about?

See above, where I explain how your original statement was simply
wrong.

Nope.

Peter Skelton

"Peter Skelton" wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:



Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
criminals.

In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
said.

I have, and Fred's view is much closer to the truth than yours.

This is probably the part that excites people:

"[The veterans at the Winter Soldier hearings] told stories that at
times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped
wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the
power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians,
razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and
dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the
countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war
and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the
applied bombing power of this country."

The way I parse that paragraph is that, although American soldiers did
not spend their entire tours raping, electrocuting, randomly shooting,
etc., nevertheless, every one of this random sample had done all these
things at least part of the time.

Now, that may be true of the men who "testified" in Miss Fonda's
hearings (it's not difficult to screen such a group), but I doubt it's
true overall. (In fact, I know from my own experience that it was not
true of any soldier I came across in three months in the field in
1964.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

That policy was the
unlimited use of indiscriminate force.

Not really. Many Vietnam vets will tell you that we fared badly in
Vietnam precisely because the use of force was limited.

Read Ed Rasimus's When Thunder Rolled, for example
www.warbirdforum.com/thunder.htm



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Peter Skelton wrote:

:On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 03:05:59 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:Peter Skelton wrote:
:
::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:58:21 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::Peter Skelton wrote:
::
:::On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:00:34 -0500, "John Keeney"
wrote:
:::
:::
:::"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
:::news:g6pa30tkmdq7db5b8b2efb2nhl38cpip6j@4ax. com...
::: Peter Skelton wrote:
:::
::: :On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 14:41:57 GMT, Fred J. McCall
::: wrote:
::: :
::: :Peter Skelton wrote:
::: :
::: ::Bush simply hopped the fence the other way.
::: :
::: :Where is your evidence for this?
::: :
::: :His national guard servicce was obviously less than enthusiastic
::: r are you trying to imply that he is anti military today.
:::
::: There is a big difference between serving with little enthusiasm for
::: going to war (although you have no evidence even for that) and a
::: transition from 'anti-war' to 'pro-war', which would be "hopped the
::: fence the other way".
:::
::: :Fred, you've got to ask the stupidest questions on usenet, and
::: :that's saying a lot.
:::
::: It only seems that way to you because they are questions attempting to
::: clarify the stupidest **** ever said on Usenet ... usually by you.
:::
:::Now, Fred, Peter does say some odd things but no where near as
:::stupid as some of the NAZIs in Area 51 crap.
:::
:::The reason it's so easy to tie Fred up is that he over-reacts.
:::Here he's trying to argue that Bush's attitude to the military
:::has been constant
::
::No. Not what I said at all. Work on your reading skills, Peter.
::
::I've claimed that Bush has gone from lukewarm to strongly pro,
:
:No, you compared him to John Kerry and said he "crossed the fence
:going the other way". Now, let's look at what that means.
:
:Kerry went from volunteering for service to being a major anti-war
:figure and claiming that pretty much all of the military were war
:criminals.
:
:In your f*g dreams he did. You clearly have not read what he's
:said.

Also in front of Congress and as part of a major veterans group called
'Vietnam Veterans Against the War'. This brings us to the throwing of
(what were apparently someone else's) medals in protest. What he says
about it NOW is quite different than what he was saying back then.

:Now we know what your problem is. Go away and learn something
:about the subject.

And now we know what your problem is, too. You're still a liar who
continually resorts to insult in preference to fact, changing your
past statements however necessary to allow you to continue to spew
your vomit.

Your problem is obvious:

No signal; all noise.

No wheat; all chaff.

No Peter; all dick.

No more; all gone.

plonk

--
"Better off you than me
I just can't stand another day when you're in my way
A long time brewing
It's time you kiss your ass goodbye"
-- Godsmack, "Changes"

"Cub Driver" wrote

Now, that may be true of the men who "testified" in Miss Fonda's
hearings (it's not difficult to screen such a group), but I doubt it's
true overall. (In fact, I know from my own experience that it was not
true of any soldier I came across in three months in the field in
1964.)

I happened to be in a guys hooch when he whipped-out a picture he made
of his platoon holding the heads of the dead enemy by their hair. He said
he was going to send it home so his brother could see it.

Fine, I said. I'll be sure to send one when they find your sorry ass with a
dick in your mouth, and be sure to let him see that as well. Slicing-up people
after they are dead is dumb hobby, and one where the enemy would
retaliate. We're not damned farm animals.

No matter where you go, you will find retarded people.