Kerry is a pilot?

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:%mTSb.192917$I06.2131414@attbi_s01...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:NYPSb.197888$na.329502@attbi_s04...
I get a kick out of this. Kerry was wounded 3 times in combat
situations

All three of his wounds were superficial/band-aid level.

By the grace of God - does this somehow impugn his service?

Not at all, but it does give suuport to the contention that his service was
pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor, country".


Three superfical wounds? I've seen people receive more serious injuries
playing sports off duty.

And the point is?

See above. When it suites his purpose, he's a "great warrior". That is
downright pathological.




What's more, his Silver Star was for giving the coup de grac to a VC
that
was already wounded by a .50 cal. WOW!!!

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:%mTSb.192917$I06.2131414@attbi_s01...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:NYPSb.197888$na.329502@attbi_s04...
I get a kick out of this. Kerry was wounded 3 times in combat
situations

All three of his wounds were superficial/band-aid level.

By the grace of God - does this somehow impugn his service?

Not at all, but it does give suuport to the contention that his service
was
pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor, country".

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. How does the fact that he was lucky enough
to escape with superficial wounds "give suuport to the contention that his
service was pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor,
country".

The man went to the front lines in Vietnam. If he felt that risking his life
was also a resume builder for a future career, is that somehow bad? The
military advertises everyday that joining is a step to a career, that they
build leaders, that service yields lifelong benefits.

I'm sure conservatives can find plenty to attack on John Kerry's political
life and current positions. Attacking his military service just makes the
relevant arguments look small.

Michael

Michael

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message ...

Actually the quote is accurate, but the source is questionable.

I've seen attributions dating from 1765 all the way up to the 1830's. IAC,
the first part is fairly accurate, but the second part (chronology) is a
real stretch.

I disagree. The quote is neither accurate, nor attributable to
Tytler.

Yes, I know this quote is *everywhere* on the Internet and even in
quite a bit of print media (for example, see p. 68 of Bill O'Reilly's
book "Who's Looking Out for You."). But that doesn't make it true.

I have searched through Tytler's world-history writings (which is
where this would be most likely to be found). Others have searched as
well. It appears nobody can find it. Of course, it can't be *proven*
that Tytler never said or wrote such a thing -- it can only be proven
that he did. And the way one proves that he did is to produce an
exact citation for the source of the quote that others can verify.

So if you (or anyone else) are sure *any* part of the quote is "fairly
accurate," please just supply the correct citation. If you can do so,
I will be most grateful. Really, I will -- I've spent too many hours
searching for the source of the quote to feel satisfied coming away
empty-handed.

There's also the issue of whether Tytler would've been likely to say
any of the text attributed to him. Based on what I've read of his
material, I'd say it is *highly* unlikely he would've said anything
like it. The idea that the average age of the "world's greatest
civilizations" is only 200 years is rather silly and it's unlikely
Tytler would've said it. Further, Tytler discusses the Athenian
republic in great detail in his book "Universal History...". The
Athenian Republic didn't decline because the people were voting
themselves "largesse" from the public treasury. Their downfall was
due to a combination of political corruption, complacency, and getting
their butts kicked in a war. The so-called "Cycle of Democracy" had
nothing to do with it.


-Mike P.

I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

mike regish

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Kerry is certainly counting on the gullability of segments of the
population
and you're providing him positive feedback.

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Kerry's clowns are now out claiming there was no threat.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Kerry is certainly counting on the gullability of segments of the
population
and you're providing him positive feedback.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Kerry's clowns are now out claiming there was no threat.

Well, that's the media, selectively quoting the Kay report. A report running
hundreds of pages and they pick one or two pages out of contet. Small wonder
they ahve no clue about the military intelligence process. No small wonder
either since they're the ones that sabotaged it (the Intelligence Community)
in the first place.

Hey, since they say no WMD's what was Bubba talking about when he said:"One
way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

And: "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

And what was Kerry talking about when he said:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
...." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Kerry's information is as convenient as his military "service".

"Mike Powell" wrote in message
m...
"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

Actually the quote is accurate, but the source is questionable.

I've seen attributions dating from 1765 all the way up to the 1830's.
IAC,
the first part is fairly accurate, but the second part (chronology) is a
real stretch.

I disagree. The quote is neither accurate, nor attributable to
Tytler.

Yes, I know this quote is *everywhere* on the Internet and even in
quite a bit of print media (for example, see p. 68 of Bill O'Reilly's
book "Who's Looking Out for You."). But that doesn't make it true.

I have searched through Tytler's world-history writings (which is
where this would be most likely to be found). Others have searched as
well. It appears nobody can find it. Of course, it can't be *proven*
that Tytler never said or wrote such a thing -- it can only be proven
that he did. And the way one proves that he did is to produce an
exact citation for the source of the quote that others can verify.

So if you (or anyone else) are sure *any* part of the quote is "fairly
accurate," please just supply the correct citation.

I'm sorry, I should have said the CONTENT was fairly accurate, not the
attribution. I have no doubt that the cite of Tyler, Tytler, Tittie, or
whomever is wrong. And as I said, the second part is really bogus regardless
of who wrote it, in either the 18th or 20th century.

So, all in all, I agree with your conclusion.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"mike regish" wrote in message
news:w7_Sb.150655$Rc4.1201230@attbi_s54...
I think Bush already has that segment sown up.

As well as the election.

Unless Kerry can get the millions (1.2M to 3.8M...so much for a 550K
"margin") of illegal aliens back into the voting booth like Gore's team did.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:zSUSb.150578$sv6.838635@attbi_s52...
By the grace of God - does this somehow impugn his service?

Not at all, but it does give suuport to the contention that his service
was
pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor, country".

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. How does the fact that he was lucky enough
to escape with superficial wounds "give suuport to the contention that his
service was pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor,
country".

Well, let's see: Three (3) wounds qualify as a dismissal from the war zone,
so with wounds not much worse than paper cuts our "Heroic Warrior" cuts and
runs. Now he he displays his medals as through he was Audie Murphy.


The man went to the front lines in Vietnam. If he felt that risking his
life
was also a resume builder for a future career, is that somehow bad? The
military advertises everyday that joining is a step to a career, that they
build leaders, that service yields lifelong benefits.

So his action is merely self-serving? I cringe to think what he considers
the Presidency.


I'm sure conservatives can find plenty to attack on John Kerry's political
life and current positions. Attacking his military service just makes the
relevant arguments look small.

Except I'm not a conservative, didn't vote for Bush and won't this year.

Try a different spin.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message
...

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:zSUSb.150578$sv6.838635@attbi_s52...
By the grace of God - does this somehow impugn his service?

Not at all, but it does give suuport to the contention that his
service
was
pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor, country".

I'm sorry, I just don't get it. How does the fact that he was lucky
enough
to escape with superficial wounds "give suuport to the contention that
his
service was pruely for political gain, not any sense of "duty, honor,
country".

Well, let's see: Three (3) wounds qualify as a dismissal from the war
zone,
so with wounds not much worse than paper cuts our "Heroic Warrior" cuts
and
runs. Now he he displays his medals as through he was Audie Murphy.

Ah, I understand now - he should have stayed until he had a life threating
injury in a war he had already come to understand was a mistake. How
obvious.



The man went to the front lines in Vietnam. If he felt that risking his
life
was also a resume builder for a future career, is that somehow bad? The
military advertises everyday that joining is a step to a career, that
they
build leaders, that service yields lifelong benefits.

So his action is merely self-serving? I cringe to think what he considers
the Presidency.


All actions, at least noble ones, are self-serving to some extent. They make
you a better person.


I'm sure conservatives can find plenty to attack on John Kerry's
political
life and current positions. Attacking his military service just makes
the
relevant arguments look small.

Except I'm not a conservative, didn't vote for Bush and won't this year.

Could have fooled me from the conservative rants you post on this newsgroup.

Done here. Have fun.

Michael