Odd interaction with a road rager

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Ron McKinnon, Aug 31, 2004.

  1. Rick

    Rick Guest

    GRL wrote:
    > The trouble is that the wrong Kerry is running. Bob Kerry one can respect
    > and admire while disagreeing with him. The pond scum John Kerry's behavior:
    > self-glorifying lies about his delusional activities during his short 4
    > months in Vietnam, insulting our troops with outrageous war crimes charges,
    > and then offering aid and comfort to the enemy meeting with them in France
    > (while our POW's were being abused by them) is so far beyond the pale... It
    > is disgusting he was nominated by the Democrats. We have a traitor running
    > for president thanks to the Democrat primary voters. Nice. Very nice.
    >


    4 months of the most dangerous work in the war, bar none. Kerry did not
    ask for awards, this is not how the military operates. A superior
    officier, who may or may not be delusional, I'll admit, must submit a
    recommendation which is then investigated before any awards are given
    (even purple hearts). But then, those with a political axe to grind
    don't care much about truth.

    As to the charges that the boats violated the borders of Laos and
    Cambodia, there is no denying that it happened, and it happened frequently.
    > What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
    > Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
    > president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
    > traitorous liar John Kerry. His own campaign has had to disavow his repeated
    > nonsense about his life being turned around by being illegally ordered by
    > Nixon into Cambodia with his river patrol boat. The boat wasn't there and
    > Nixon wasn't even president.


    From "http://www.johnkerry.com/rapidresponse/080504_truth.html"
    "These reports contain the details of the four boats involved in these
    actions on March, 13. 1969-including Kerry's boat PCF-94."

    Which puts Kerry in a boat, in Vietnam, a year after Nixon was elected.
    I don't know where you get your facts, probably from SBVT (who have yet
    to put forth a creditable piece of evidence - even the doctor who
    reported that he treated Kerry's first wound is not one of those on the
    official Navy reports.

    I'm not a huge Kerry fan, but haven't enough lies been spread already?
    The Navy keeps meticulous records (despite their many faults), and
    follows established procedures for granting metals. In no branch of
    service, not even the Texas Air National Guard, do personal grant
    themselves metals for valor or injury.

    ....drivel deleted
    > Jack Kennedy was a patriot and he would puke at the thought of scum
    > like Kerry running for president.
    >


    Kennedy enlisted. Like Kerry, he joined the Navy and served on the boats
    with the highest casualty rate in that war. Kerry also enlisted,
    volunteered for duty in Vietnam, on the boats with the highest casualty
    rate in the war. Say what you will about the man's beliefs and the like,
    but he bravely served his country in a very unpopular war. That US
    servicemen crossed the borders into Laos and Cambodia is well
    documented. I have no doubt that Kerry, whose boat was partolling those
    borders (since the river was the border), found himself crossing both
    sides of the river on a daily basis. I know several Navy Seals who were
    extracted by Swift boats and PBR's, most of whom were highly
    appreciative of their encroachment into these neighbor states.

    So, accuse Kerry of lying, but not about his war record. The man put it
    on the line, which is more than you can say about most.


    Rick
     


  2. On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 22:33:22 -0500, Mitch Haley <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >When you talk about self-serving socialist liars in Congress, Ted Kennedy,
    >Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Diane Fienstein, and John Kerry are the
    >first names that come to my mind.


    LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    right and the far right.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  3. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    > LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    > very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    > right and the far right.


    Guy, Hitler was a socialist too.

    Our two main choices (we have others, and I'm not voting for either
    of these two) are liberal/communist/socialist and neoconservative/
    fascist/socialist. Both of them want to expand our federal government,
    which has already grown to about 10-20x the limits supposedly imposed
    on it by our Constitution. If you think Kerry is right-wing, I must
    agree with you strongly. He's in the top 10 of leftist nutcases in
    our Congress. (although, for all I know, he might be among the most
    right-wing if he became a MP)

    Mitch.
     
  4. On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 06:38:06 -0500, Mitch Haley <[email protected]er.net>
    wrote:


    >> LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    >> very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    >> right and the far right.


    >Guy, Hitler was a socialist too.


    So he said (actually a "national-socialist" which is different in that
    it embodies extreme nationalism). He wasn't terribly keen on
    Communists, as I recall... I always find it amazing that people are
    prepared to take Hitler's words on trust in that one matter :)

    It isn't that simple, of course - http://www.politicalcompass.org/

    Or actually relevant, unless you were trying to Godwinate the thread?

    >Our two main choices (we have others, and I'm not voting for either
    >of these two) are liberal/communist/socialist and neoconservative/
    >fascist/socialist. Both of them want to expand our federal government,
    >which has already grown to about 10-20x the limits supposedly imposed
    >on it by our Constitution.


    You need to compare your "socialists" with some actual socialists, I
    think. The centre of US politics is well to the right of the global
    average, in most respects, anyway. Kerry's "left-wing" policies are
    in line with many centre-right European parties.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  5. Paul Cassel

    Paul Cassel Guest

    GRL wrote:
    >
    > There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
    > if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.
    >


    Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like Kerrey
    (Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.

    As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
    ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
    voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the misery
    of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.

    -paul
     
  6. Paul Cassel

    Paul Cassel Guest

    Mitch Haley wrote:

    > Your comment reminds me of an opinion column I recently read which claimed
    > that John McLain was one of the most universally respected members of
    > the Senate. As far as I'm concerned, you can lump McLain in with the
    > Constitution hating trash mentioned above.
    >


    I agree on the AZ dirtbag, but his point was that there are good D's
    like Bob Kerrey and I agree. We sure don't have anything decent in this
    D ticket, tho.
     
  7. Paul Cassel wrote:
    > GRL wrote:
    >>
    >> There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against
    >> bad-luck Bush if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead
    >> of John Kerry.
    >>

    >
    > Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like
    > Kerrey (Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.
    >
    > As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
    > ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
    > voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the
    > misery of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.


    Now if THAT isn't a ringing endorsement...

    Bill "I think Spiderman and Alice N. Wonderland might steal it (in OH *and*
    FL)" S.
     
  8. GRL wrote:
    > The trouble is that the wrong Kerry is running. Bob Kerry one can
    > respect and admire while disagreeing with him. The pond scum John
    > Kerry's behavior: self-glorifying lies about his delusional
    > activities during his short 4 months in Vietnam, insulting our troops
    > with outrageous war crimes charges, and then offering aid and comfort
    > to the enemy meeting with them in France (while our POW's were being
    > abused by them) is so far beyond the pale... It is disgusting he was
    > nominated by the Democrats. We have a traitor running for president
    > thanks to the Democrat primary voters. Nice. Very nice.
    >
    > What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
    > Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
    > president, Republican or Democrat, and they nominate the self-serving
    > traitorous liar John Kerry. His own campaign has had to disavow his
    > repeated nonsense about his life being turned around by being
    > illegally ordered by Nixon into Cambodia with his river patrol boat.
    > The boat wasn't there and Nixon wasn't even president. Democrats had
    > a lot of fun with Reagan's lapses where he confused movie scripts
    > with real memories. But at least his stories were meant to uplift the
    > human spirit by giving positive examples of human behavior. Kerry's
    > self-serving stories are meant to make Kerry look good...which he's
    > not. He's no Ron Reagan...or Jack Kennedy, for that matter. Jack
    > Kennedy was a patriot and he would puke at the thought of scum like
    > Kerry running for president.
    >
    > There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against
    > bad-luck Bush if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of
    > John Kerry.


    Ya know, for a top-poster you write durn good.

    Bill "but it's Bob KERREY, not Kerry" S.
     
  9. Jeff Starr

    Jeff Starr Guest

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:09:43 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

    >GRL wrote:
    >>
    >> There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
    >> if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.
    >>

    >
    >Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like Kerrey
    >(Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.
    >
    >As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
    >ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
    >voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the misery
    >of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.
    >
    >-paul


    I would vote for my neighbors german sheperd, before I would vote for
    Bush. Anyone, almost anything, is better than another 4 years, of him
    screwing up my country. He is the worst president of my lifetime.
    Nixon, may have been a crook, but he was a better president.

    I am really disappointed in my fellow man. Why would you award someone
    with another 4 years, when they have made so many major mistakes.

    The Packer's won on Sunday, beating the Washington Redskins, let's
    hope that prediction continues. The Redskins lose, the incumbant
    loses. Being a Packer's fan, most of my life, how fitting that it was
    them, that got to play the Sunday before the election.

    In spite of the damage done in the last 4 years, I still believe that-
    Life is Good!
    Jeff
     
  10. On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:11:03 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >>LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    >>very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    >>right and the far right.


    > Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
    >Ted Kennedy.


    Exactly :)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  11. Zoot Katz

    Zoot Katz Guest

    Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:13:54 +0000,
    <[email protected]>, "Just zis Guy, you
    know?" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >>>LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    >>>very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    >>>right and the far right.

    >
    >> Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
    >>Ted Kennedy.

    >
    >Exactly :)
    >
    >Guy


    They're going to vote exactly like the French did.

    Elect the facist to keep out the nazi.
    --
    zk
     
  12. Pat

    Pat Guest

    : >>LOL! The idea that there are any socialists at all in US politics is
    : >>very amusing indeed! Your choice in 2004, as ever, is between the
    : >>right and the far right.
    :
    : > Kerry is the most liberal senator in the US, surpassing even
    : >Ted Kennedy.
    :
    : Exactly :)
    :
    : Guy

    www.factcheck.org says he is the 11th, not the first.

    you might want to get the facts.

    Pat in TX
     
  13. dgk

    dgk Guest

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:09:43 -0700, Paul Cassel <[email protected]> wrote:

    >GRL wrote:
    >>
    >> There are a lot more people who would be happy to vote against bad-luck Bush
    >> if the Democrats ran a respectable candidate instead of John Kerry.
    >>

    >
    >Gee yes. If the D's had run anything decent or someone fine like Kerrey
    >(Bob) I think the vote for the D's would be almost unanimous.
    >
    >As it is, the D's have managed to find a piece of pond scum I wouldn't
    >ever vote or or have loyalty to in this POS candidate. Incredibly, I'm
    >voting Bush not because of Bush, but because I'll never stand the misery
    >of slimey kerry and worse edwards - the trial lawyer turd.
    >
    >-paul


    Seems to me that Kerry dug out the truth of BCCI, to the chagrin of
    both Republicans and Democrats, as well as being the only one willing
    to go after Iran/Contra. I think the guy has guts.
     
  14. dgk

    dgk Guest

    On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 21:09:08 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 19:58:17 -0500, "GRL" <[email protected]>
    >claims:
    >
    >>What the devil is with the Democrats? They could have nominated Joe
    >>Lieberman, an honorable man that anyone would be satisfied to have as
    >>president, Republican or Democrat,

    >
    > Anti-semitism is alive and healthy in the Democrat party, as
    >always. It fits in with their anti-black agenda. The only mystery is
    >why Jews and blacks fall into lockstep during elections, drinking the
    >liberal Kool-Aid, even though their votes are viewed by party leaders
    >as the sole property of the Dems.
    >
    >

    Maybe you just don't understand anything?
     
  15. Rick

    Rick Guest

    ....stuff deleted
    >>4 months of the most dangerous work in the war, bar none. Kerry did not
    >>ask for awards, this is not how the military operates. A superior
    >>officier, who may or may not be delusional, I'll admit, must submit a
    >>recommendation which is then investigated before any awards are given
    >>(even purple hearts). But then, those with a political axe to grind
    >>don't care much about truth.

    >
    >


    > The following morning after Kerry's alleged first intense combat
    > engagement, he requested a Purple Heart from his commanding officer,
    > Grant Hibbard (Ret.).
    > http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002447.php
    >


    No individual can request a combat award. They can document what
    happened, with the recommendation of their superior officer, and wait
    for a judgement. While I've read the web site, supposedly describing how
    he requested the award, I can't give it much credence. The process
    described is, simply, not how such awards are given.

    >
    >>As to the charges that the boats violated the borders of Laos and
    >>Cambodia, there is no denying that it happened, and it happened frequently.

    >
    >
    > On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign acknowledged that John Kerry probably
    > was not in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, contrary to the senator's
    > decades-old assertion.
    > http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20040812-090512-6687r.htm
    >


    Sure, pick a given date and you can, with good probability, say that he
    wasn't in Cambodia on that day. The reality is, most of these operations
    were covert, not documented by normal Navy processes (when picking up
    SEALS, for example, the boat drivers do not report their goings and
    comings). That Kerry, in his patrols up and down the river did cross
    into Cambodian territory is undeniable. This was the role of these boats
    and it was expected that this would happen.

    On a personal basis, you may or may not feel that his awards are
    worthwhile. Personally, anyone who would board one of those boats
    deserves a medal for bravery. Anyone who willingly toured on one is
    either an idiot, exceptionally brave, or has no survival instinct. I
    believe that Kerry does not fit in the last category, and probably
    doesn't fit in the first.

    Rick
     
  16. Pete

    Pete Guest

    "Rick" <[email protected]> wrote
    >
    > No individual can request a combat award. They can document what happened,
    > with the recommendation of their superior officer, and wait for a
    > judgement. While I've read the web site, supposedly describing how he
    > requested the award, I can't give it much credence. The process described
    > is, simply, not how such awards are given.


    One can write his own, and have it submitted up the chaian. A suitable
    commander, looking to pad *his own* resume, might just sign it.

    Not saying that is what happened in this case, but it *does* happen.

    Pete
     
  17. neil0502

    neil0502 Guest

    Ken [NY) wrote:

    > Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
    > A: Telling your parents you're gay.



    Guess I never noticed this on your signature before, Ken. Nice (said with
    the utmost sarcasm).

    Helps your credibility a great deal (especially on a newgroup where most of
    us where lycra/spandex . . . and many shave their legs).
     
  18. neil0502 wrote:
    > Ken [NY) wrote:
    >
    >> Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
    >> A: Telling your parents you're gay.

    >
    >
    > Guess I never noticed this on your signature before, Ken. Nice (said
    > with the utmost sarcasm).
    >
    > Helps your credibility a great deal (especially on a newgroup where
    > most of us where lycra/spandex . . . and many shave their legs).


    I /think/ it's a joke, Neil! C'mon, cheer up -- wanna ride up coast on
    Friday?

    Bill "hairy-legged lycra/spandex dude" S.
     
  19. On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:59:46 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >In view of Kerry's humiliating defeat by the American voters
    >such as myself, maybe it's you that is having problems understanding
    >what has happened.


    Interesting spin. It is unusual, as far as I understand it, for a
    president not to secure a second term (with obvious exceptions like
    Ford, who was never elected in the first place).

    A humiliating defeat would require a very much larger margin that I
    can see. I am also somewhat uneasy that the opinon and exit polls are
    so far wrong; there has been enough said about the unauditable Diebold
    systems to spin off at least four years of conspiracy theries...

    Me, I think the polls were just wrong. I can quite believe that more
    Republican voters than ever before would have been too ashamed to own
    up to it, we had that in the last election the Conservatives won over
    here. Nobody wants to admit to having voted for a chimpanzee in a
    suit, after all ;-)

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  20. Terry Morse

    Terry Morse Guest

    "Ken [NY)" wrote:

    > In last night's election, it appears that Florida
    > Jews, and blacks across the country - perhaps a bit tired of
    > Democrat's empty promises - have switched over to Bush.


    Florida blacks for Kerry: 87%
    Florida women for Kerry: 52%

    In Florida, Bush got his base. He won among whites, conservatives,
    rural voters, faithful church-goers and Floridians more fearful of
    terrorism than worried about Iraq.
    --
    terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/
     
Loading...
Loading...