Why didn't Bush fight?

"Ed Majden" wrote in message
...
in article , Tank Fixer
at
wrote on 9/1/04 10:45:


He certainly has the right to his opinions.
But lately Art isn't talking about WW2 but about his opinons of how
great
Clinton was and how great Kerry would be as president..

I guess you then must disagree with 50% of your own countrymen.

What, you think 50% of us think Art has *not* been directing his new threads
at polical subjects?

Some
think President Bush stole the election so this number may in fact be more
than 50%.

Only idiots think the election was "stolen"; anybody capable of
comprehending what the electoral system is all about has no such thoughts.

Note, I treat President Bush with great respect because of the
office he holds. I may disagree with some of his ideas however. Unlike
some
of you that seem to have tunnel vision!

Like Art, you mean?

Brooks

Ed

"OXMORON1" wrote in message
...

Art don't you know any other words to use? For a college student your
vocabulary is limited lately.


College student? I thought he was working toward a GED.

In article ,
on 01 Sep 2004 18:58:55 GMT,
OXMORON1 attempted to say .....


How about the 20th Maine at Gettysburg? No wait we can't mention them, they
were Militia, aka National Guard, therfore useless according to your comments.

Lead by a school teacher at that....


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

In article ,
on Wed, 01 Sep 2004 18:55:26 GMT,
Ed Majden attempted to say .....

in article , Tank Fixer at
wrote on 9/1/04 10:45:


He certainly has the right to his opinions.
But lately Art isn't talking about WW2 but about his opinons of how great
Clinton was and how great Kerry would be as president..

I guess you then must disagree with 50% of your own countrymen. Some
think President Bush stole the election so this number may in fact be more
than 50%. Note, I treat President Bush with great respect because of the
office he holds. I may disagree with some of his ideas however. Unlike some
of you that seem to have tunnel vision!

1) I doubt it's 50%, more like a very vocal 20% or 30%, IMHO.

2) Not sure what tunnel vision you might be talking about. For me it's a
choice between one who has made some mistakes and one who, although in a
position to get a great deal done has for 20+ years done nothing.



--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.

Not likely . . . by his own admission, it has taken him 4 years to pass 2
years worth of "Constitutional Law."

Steve Swartz

"Jarg" wrote in message
. com...
"ArtKramr" wrote in message
...
Subject: Why can't Art stay on-topic?


Excellant advice. Go tro my webpages and stop bothering me. I am back at
school
now and have less time for crap.




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


I for one sincerely hope you learn something while in school.

Jarg

rrussell wrote:

a politician should definitely be decisive and also courageous, but in a
completely other way than soldiers. or am i just dreaming this up?

No, you are not dreaming: it is the electorate that are apparently
asleep. The real problems of today are something both parties feel they
should avoid.

This does not bode well for the future.


Jack

The real problems are too complex for the main stream media to report so
they focus on thirty year old so called scandals that have little or no
bearing on today's world.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
rrussell wrote:

a politician should definitely be decisive and also courageous, but in a
completely other way than soldiers. or am i just dreaming this up?

No, you are not dreaming: it is the electorate that are apparently asleep.
The real problems of today are something both parties feel they should
avoid.

This does not bode well for the future.


Jack

rrussell wrote:

a politician should definitely be decisive and also courageous, but in a
completely other way than soldiers. or am i just dreaming this up?

A soldier is expected to have both physical and moral courage. Why
should we not expect any less from our civilian leaders?


--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine

In article ,
(remove underscore) wrote:

rrussell wrote:

a politician should definitely be decisive and also courageous, but in
a
completely other way than soldiers. or am i just dreaming this up?

A soldier is expected to have both physical and moral courage. Why
should we not expect any less from our civilian leaders?

Moral, yes. One would hope that the Secret Service, Homeland Security,
NORAD, etc., all contribute to a lack of a requirement for physical
courage.

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 11:14:16 -0400, Howard Berkowitz
wrote:

In article ,
(remove underscore) wrote:

rrussell wrote:

a politician should definitely be decisive and also courageous, but in
a
completely other way than soldiers. or am i just dreaming this up?

A soldier is expected to have both physical and moral courage. Why
should we not expect any less from our civilian leaders?

Moral, yes. One would hope that the Secret Service, Homeland Security,
NORAD, etc., all contribute to a lack of a requirement for physical
courage.

After 9/11 President Bush did not believe that he would survive his
term as President.

He felt that if he did what he believed needed to be done Al Queda
would eventually kill him - and he did it anyway.



--
"It's not American foreign policy, or the plight of the
Palestinians, or America's longstanding support for Israel.
A group of people with money and weaponry have simply
decided that we, as a civilization, are unfit to live, and
want, eventally, to exterminate us."
'Christian Century' magazine