On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:00:19 -0600, BubbaBob
> wrote:

(RMiller) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I am certain she must mean George Bush. After all, it was he,
>>>who climbed out of a jet, in a flight suit, and declared Mission
>>>Accomplished. --
>>
>> Wrong again, I meant Kerry. After all he served only 3 months in
>> combat plus one month at the beach in training.
>>
>> Serving in the National Guard may not be your cup of tea, but it
>> is SERVICE.
>>
>> Rosie
>>
>
>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.

Bubba he serve on coastal patrol in a destroyer, from what I under
stand.
A tender is a support vessel that generally stays at a base for
repair and resupply.
Pan Ohco

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:00:19 -0600, BubbaBob
> wrote:

(RMiller) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>I am certain she must mean George Bush. After all, it was he,
>>>who climbed out of a jet, in a flight suit, and declared Mission
>>>Accomplished. --
>>
>> Wrong again, I meant Kerry. After all he served only 3 months in
>> combat plus one month at the beach in training.
>>
>> Serving in the National Guard may not be your cup of tea, but it
>> is SERVICE.
>>
>> Rosie
>>
>
>I guess you haven't heard that this was his SECOND VN tour of duty.
>He did a full year on a destroyer tender before that.

Bubba he serve on coastal patrol in a destroyer, from what I under
stand.
A tender is a support vessel that generally stays at a base for
repair and resupply.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:33:22 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.

Peter, once again all this would have been less of a problem is Kerry
had not indicated that he would be a better president because of his
war experience. Now if Bush make inflated statements about his war
record,( at the GOP convention) the Dems can trash his record. As
they have been doing since the Democratic primaries.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 15:33:22 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> wrote:


>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.

Peter, once again all this would have been less of a problem is Kerry
had not indicated that he would be a better president because of his
war experience. Now if Bush make inflated statements about his war
record,( at the GOP convention) the Dems can trash his record. As
they have been doing since the Democratic primaries.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:04:27 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>Serving proudly, and fighting unjustified wars are not the same. But, he
>is entitled to same rights as anyone. I just happen to think my serving
>in Vietnam was dishonorable to the ideals of America.

Tell me Alan did you cut off peoples heads and ears. Did you burn
villages and kill livestock.

Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:04:27 GMT, alzelt
> wrote:


>Serving proudly, and fighting unjustified wars are not the same. But, he
>is entitled to same rights as anyone. I just happen to think my serving
>in Vietnam was dishonorable to the ideals of America.

Tell me Alan did you cut off peoples heads and ears. Did you burn
villages and kill livestock.

Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:01:46 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

I wish to apologized to all, for the multiple responses to Michel. I
am have trouble with my news reader. I believe I have the problem
corrected.
Pan Ohco

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:01:46 -0500, Pan Ohco > wrote:

I wish to apologized to all, for the multiple responses to Michel. I
am have trouble with my news reader. I believe I have the problem
corrected.
Pan Ohco

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all
>>apron-wearing tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any
>>country or people, not even those who have harmed my people. It
>>doesn't prevent me from seeing clearly what has been and is being
>>done. I've explained that. I guess you weren't listening.
>
> Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to
> slight the U.S.

I have never said anything against the US as a country unless it was
in jest and clearly indicated as such (as in the case of ribbing,
usually gentle, unless I am responding to someone I feel can be
trusted not to go ballistic on me).

Yes, I have severely criticized the US government, sometimes referred
to in short as "US", just as the French government is referred to as
"France", but is not every Frenchman, and the Canadian government as
"Canada", and is not every Canadian. You have to actually *read* the
context to get the gist of it, not just look for key words you can
hang your ideology onto.

Take a recent example, the "Breast Cancer" conundrum. Some reacted
as though in asking for clarity I had personally insulted their
dearly departed loved ones. As a test, I had two people who came
over read my note without any explanation or context and they got my
point right away.

You would be hard pressed to find any example of criticism that was
not clearly directed at the US government (and by government, I men
Bush and his cabinet...not the civil servants) in so many words, and
if not, by a cursory glance at actual context. If you think I'm
going to start flagging everything I write with subtext references to
keep the right-wing off my back, you're sorely mistaken. The
obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.

Next time you look at something I have written, keep this frame of
reference in mind. Things will be clearer for you and for Nancree as
well as the other Bush guys'n'gals out there.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Of Bush, yes, the man is a cypher and his cronies are all
>>apron-wearing tools. The USA, no. I have no hatred of any
>>country or people, not even those who have harmed my people. It
>>doesn't prevent me from seeing clearly what has been and is being
>>done. I've explained that. I guess you weren't listening.
>
> Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to
> slight the U.S.

I have never said anything against the US as a country unless it was
in jest and clearly indicated as such (as in the case of ribbing,
usually gentle, unless I am responding to someone I feel can be
trusted not to go ballistic on me).

Yes, I have severely criticized the US government, sometimes referred
to in short as "US", just as the French government is referred to as
"France", but is not every Frenchman, and the Canadian government as
"Canada", and is not every Canadian. You have to actually *read* the
context to get the gist of it, not just look for key words you can
hang your ideology onto.

Take a recent example, the "Breast Cancer" conundrum. Some reacted
as though in asking for clarity I had personally insulted their
dearly departed loved ones. As a test, I had two people who came
over read my note without any explanation or context and they got my
point right away.

You would be hard pressed to find any example of criticism that was
not clearly directed at the US government (and by government, I men
Bush and his cabinet...not the civil servants) in so many words, and
if not, by a cursory glance at actual context. If you think I'm
going to start flagging everything I write with subtext references to
keep the right-wing off my back, you're sorely mistaken. The
obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.

Next time you look at something I have written, keep this frame of
reference in mind. Things will be clearer for you and for Nancree as
well as the other Bush guys'n'gals out there.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>>one can garner from right and right,
>
> Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.

Now, that is childish and vindictive. Couldn't you find a better
argument than that? Like:

1. "S'matter...you don't complain about simplistic explanations from
the left!"

2. "What thread of events? We have no warp! We have no woof!"

Cheez, it's not THAT difficult. The trick is to stay light and witty
without sinking into the use of ad hominems.

> Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner

Wow...a joke! The Electoral collage...is it held together with glue
and string, or simply pasted upon an existing collage? Is it the
kind with macaroni stuck to it?

Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)

>>Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!
>
> I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
> unrepentant commie.

Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which I
invited you to investigate some time ago.

As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
communism, I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are vastly
different from anything common to the current debate in the US and
that I have no real interest in your petty politics.

As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over validity
and the current rise of a very frightening political entity in the
US, the vurrent crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of the
United States and it is my responsibility to examine this phenomenon,
of which George W. Bush is the manifestation.

> And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?

Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.

Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
difficult.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

> On 30 Aug 2004 23:55:45 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
>>I am not the only one who says it from an analysis of
>>the facts in the case and I believe I presented a somewhat more
>>cogent view of the thread of events than the simplistic refutations
>>one can garner from right and right,
>
> Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.

Now, that is childish and vindictive. Couldn't you find a better
argument than that? Like:

1. "S'matter...you don't complain about simplistic explanations from
the left!"

2. "What thread of events? We have no warp! We have no woof!"

Cheez, it's not THAT difficult. The trick is to stay light and witty
without sinking into the use of ad hominems.

> Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner

Wow...a joke! The Electoral collage...is it held together with glue
and string, or simply pasted upon an existing collage? Is it the
kind with macaroni stuck to it?

Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)

>>Now's your chance (your last chance) to make a
>>Christian gods-fearing pro-Bush anti-commie out of me. Go for it!
>
> I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
> unrepentant commie.

Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which I
invited you to investigate some time ago.

As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
communism, I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are vastly
different from anything common to the current debate in the US and
that I have no real interest in your petty politics.

As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over validity
and the current rise of a very frightening political entity in the
US, the vurrent crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of the
United States and it is my responsibility to examine this phenomenon,
of which George W. Bush is the manifestation.

> And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?

Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.

Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
difficult.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

>Pan Ohco
>
>>Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>>> You are the one that said Bush was not legally elected
>
>> I am not the only one who says it
>
>Ah yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinker .

I heard on the news the other day it's been recently discovered that more than
10,000 NY Democrat snowbirds voted both in NY and in FL. What's "clear" is
that Bush CLEARLY won Florida.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>Pan Ohco
>
>>Michel Boucher wrote:
>
>>> You are the one that said Bush was not legally elected
>
>> I am not the only one who says it
>
>Ah yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinker .

I heard on the news the other day it's been recently discovered that more than
10,000 NY Democrat snowbirds voted both in NY and in FL. What's "clear" is
that Bush CLEARLY won Florida.


---= BOYCOTT FRANCE (belgium) GERMANY--SPAIN =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
*********
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
Sheldon
````````````

>
>
>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
>
>
>--
>Peter Aitken
>
>Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>


I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been truthful
about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff just
gets in the way...

I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really pretty
fair!!.

Rosie

>
>
>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
>
>
>--
>Peter Aitken
>
>Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>


I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been truthful
about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff just
gets in the way...

I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really pretty
fair!!.

Rosie

On 31 Aug 2004 16:37:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.
>
>Now, that is childish and vindictive.
>
>> Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner
>
>Wow...a joke! The Electoral collage...is it held together with glue
>and string, or simply pasted upon an existing collage? Is it the
>kind with macaroni stuck to it?
>
>Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)
>
Oh that a wonderful argument , I miss spell. And that is not a
personal attack.

>>I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
>> unrepentant commie.
>
>Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
>general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
>difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which I
>invited you to investigate some time ago.

No personal responsibility in either case, right.
>
>As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
>communism,
Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch for
them.

> I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
>that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are vastly
>different from anything common to the current debate in the US and
>that I have no real interest in your petty politics.
Petty? (slight two)
If you have no interest in our politics, why do you spend some much
time speaking about them.
>
>As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over validity
>and the current rise of a very frightening political entity in the
>US, the vurrent
(sp?)
>crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
>people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of the
>United States

Now they ,probably want to convert you.
The same as Marxist?

> and it is my responsibility to examine this phenomenon,
>of which George W. Bush is the manifestation.
>
>> And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?
>
>Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
>way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.

And arguing you point, in the face of reality is useless.
George Bush was legally elected to be the President of the United
States. According to our laws and constitution.

>Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
>difficult.

Once again you arrogance is showing. You are not qualified to mentor,
nor teach me anything.
Pan Ohco

On 31 Aug 2004 16:37:03 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Oh yes Michel Boucher the only clear thinking man in the world.
>
>Now, that is childish and vindictive.
>
>> Fact The Electoral collage declared him the winner
>
>Wow...a joke! The Electoral collage...is it held together with glue
>and string, or simply pasted upon an existing collage? Is it the
>kind with macaroni stuck to it?
>
>Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)
>
Oh that a wonderful argument , I miss spell. And that is not a
personal attack.

>>I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
>> unrepentant commie.
>
>Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
>general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
>difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which I
>invited you to investigate some time ago.

No personal responsibility in either case, right.
>
>As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
>communism,
Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch for
them.

> I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
>that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are vastly
>different from anything common to the current debate in the US and
>that I have no real interest in your petty politics.
Petty? (slight two)
If you have no interest in our politics, why do you spend some much
time speaking about them.
>
>As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over validity
>and the current rise of a very frightening political entity in the
>US, the vurrent
(sp?)
>crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
>people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of the
>United States

Now they ,probably want to convert you.
The same as Marxist?

> and it is my responsibility to examine this phenomenon,
>of which George W. Bush is the manifestation.
>
>> And you were kidding about that last chance weren't you?
>
>Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
>way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.

And arguing you point, in the face of reality is useless.
George Bush was legally elected to be the President of the United
States. According to our laws and constitution.

>Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
>difficult.

Once again you arrogance is showing. You are not qualified to mentor,
nor teach me anything.
Pan Ohco

On 31 Aug 2004 16:16:41 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to
>> slight the U.S.
>
>I have never said anything against the US as a country unless it was
>in jest and clearly indicated as such

>The
>obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
>dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.


Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.

You never had sensitivity training have you? :-)

>Next time you look at something I have written, keep this frame of
>reference in mind. Things will be clearer for you and for Nancree as
>well as the other Bush guys'n'gals out there.

Pan Ohco

On 31 Aug 2004 16:16:41 GMT, Michel Boucher >
wrote:


>> Your explanation sounds hollow when you take every chance to
>> slight the U.S.
>
>I have never said anything against the US as a country unless it was
>in jest and clearly indicated as such

>The
>obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
>dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.


Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.

You never had sensitivity training have you? :-)

>Next time you look at something I have written, keep this frame of
>reference in mind. Things will be clearer for you and for Nancree as
>well as the other Bush guys'n'gals out there.

Pan Ohco

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
> >suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
> >out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
> >Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Peter Aitken
> >
> >Remove the crap from my email address before using.
> >
>
>
> I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been
truthful
> about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff
just
> gets in the way...

Is there ay evidence he wounded himself? No. This is one of the nasty lies
the republicals have been spreading in hopes that a few simple-minded voters
will believe it.

> I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really
pretty
> fair!!.

Clinton was not a draft dodger. That's more republican BS. He used legal,
accepted educational deferments to avoid a war he was morally opposed to.
That's not draft dodging.

If you are concerned with truthfullness then look at Bush. When you apply a
strict standard of truth to Kerry and ignore shrubby's numerous lies and
evasions then you are nothing but a first class hypocrite.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"RMiller" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >
> >People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
> >suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
> >out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
> >Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
> >
> >
> >--
> >Peter Aitken
> >
> >Remove the crap from my email address before using.
> >
>
>
> I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been
truthful
> about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff
just
> gets in the way...

Is there ay evidence he wounded himself? No. This is one of the nasty lies
the republicals have been spreading in hopes that a few simple-minded voters
will believe it.

> I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really
pretty
> fair!!.

Clinton was not a draft dodger. That's more republican BS. He used legal,
accepted educational deferments to avoid a war he was morally opposed to.
That's not draft dodging.

If you are concerned with truthfullness then look at Bush. When you apply a
strict standard of truth to Kerry and ignore shrubby's numerous lies and
evasions then you are nothing but a first class hypocrite.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)
>>
> Oh that a wonderful argument , I miss spell. And that is not a
> personal attack.

No, it was an attempt to lighten the mood. Obviously you failed to
see that.

>>>I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
>>> unrepentant commie.
>>
>>Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
>>general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
>>difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which
>>I invited you to investigate some time ago.
>
> No personal responsibility in either case, right.

You'll have to explain that one because me dumm foreigner...never
mind (see below).

>>As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
>>communism,
> Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch for
> them.

Hardly. It's rcognizing that your economic system does not prepare
you for the subtleties of political discourse beyond the boundaries
of your national self-interest. It's what we in the biz call "an
observation".

>> I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
>>that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are
>>vastly different from anything common to the current debate in the
>>US and that I have no real interest in your petty politics.
> Petty? (slight two)

Petty, of small importance, trivial, from the French "petit". It was
in reference to the politics that are of concern only to you and your
compatriots and garner little interest abroad. If you wish to be so
narrow-minded as to entertain the notion that not everything about
the US is of interest as a slight against your country, then you are
indeed a sad case. I think you can do better.

> If you have no interest in our politics, why do you spend some
> much time speaking about them.

I don't discuss your internal (i.e. petty) politics, I discuss US
policies and opinions that are of an extranational (to you) nature.
Have you not noticed? When was the last time I adopted a stand on a
bill before the US Congress or said anything about a speech by a US
politician of one stripe or the other about matters internal to the
US? Never, that's when. I don't discuss your internal (i.e. petty)
politics. They are of no concern to me. Never have been and never
will be. Policies with an international scope ARE open to criticism.

>>As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over
>>validity and the current rise of a very frightening political
>>entity in the US, the vurrent
> (sp?)
>>crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
>>people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of
>>the United States
>
> Now they ,probably want to convert you.

Well, I'm more worried about how they're dealing with Islam, but they
can always try to convert me...and lotsa luck to them...they'll need
it :->

> The same as Marxist?

True Marxists do not convert anyone, and they don't belong to
"Marxist" organizations or parties. Marxists should be everywhere,
suggesting changes in policy to the right and the left, as Marx
suggested in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). I take it
you haven't read it yet, and I put on your booklist some time ago.

Marxists are far from being the monolithic bloc the far right has
become. They are a varied bunch with different opinions that are
suited to the specific situation.

For example, I can decide that the best thing for the US is to elect
George Bush for the first time in 2004 because only after another
four years of those shenanigans and loss of life will the people of
the United States realize how badly they've been cornholed by their
government.

>>Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>>cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
>>way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.
>
> And arguing you point, in the face of reality is useless.
> George Bush was legally elected to be the President of the United
> States. According to our laws and constitution.

And if he admitted that he had broken the law and faked the results
and lied about WMDs, or even just one of those things, would you ask
for his dismissal and imprisonment? How far are you willing to go
with this? Or let me put it another way. What do you get out of
Bush being president and not Kerry? How much of the wealth they
generate for their buddies actually finds its way into YOUR pocket?
A few sheckels? None? Are you deriving ANY economic benefits from
the Bush policies?

>>Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
>>difficult.
>
> Once again you arrogance is showing. You are not qualified to
> mentor, nor teach me anything.

I was being fair and open (and yes, I am qualified tomentor...it is a
large part of what I do for a living) and this is how you receive it.
Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
manner.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>Kudos for the funny, Pan :-)
>>
> Oh that a wonderful argument , I miss spell. And that is not a
> personal attack.

No, it was an attempt to lighten the mood. Obviously you failed to
see that.

>>>I'm not here to convert you Michel, you are and always will be an
>>> unrepentant commie.
>>
>>Actually, I'm not a communist although I have voted communist in
>>general elections on priciple. I'm a Marxist and there is a VAST
>>difference (and because we're guys, a vas deferens as well) which
>>I invited you to investigate some time ago.
>
> No personal responsibility in either case, right.

You'll have to explain that one because me dumm foreigner...never
mind (see below).

>>As I realize few USAians know the difference between Marxism and
>>communism,
> Another slight against the U.S. (I told you I would keep watch for
> them.

Hardly. It's rcognizing that your economic system does not prepare
you for the subtleties of political discourse beyond the boundaries
of your national self-interest. It's what we in the biz call "an
observation".

>> I accept that the term commie conveys a certain notion
>>that I am not adverse to communicating...that my politics are
>>vastly different from anything common to the current debate in the
>>US and that I have no real interest in your petty politics.
> Petty? (slight two)

Petty, of small importance, trivial, from the French "petit". It was
in reference to the politics that are of concern only to you and your
compatriots and garner little interest abroad. If you wish to be so
narrow-minded as to entertain the notion that not everything about
the US is of interest as a slight against your country, then you are
indeed a sad case. I think you can do better.

> If you have no interest in our politics, why do you spend some
> much time speaking about them.

I don't discuss your internal (i.e. petty) politics, I discuss US
policies and opinions that are of an extranational (to you) nature.
Have you not noticed? When was the last time I adopted a stand on a
bill before the US Congress or said anything about a speech by a US
politician of one stripe or the other about matters internal to the
US? Never, that's when. I don't discuss your internal (i.e. petty)
politics. They are of no concern to me. Never have been and never
will be. Policies with an international scope ARE open to criticism.

>>As a historian, however, I am interested in the debate over
>>validity and the current rise of a very frightening political
>>entity in the US, the vurrent
> (sp?)
>>crop of right-wing Christian extremists. These
>>people obviously have ambitions that extend beyond the borders of
>>the United States
>
> Now they ,probably want to convert you.

Well, I'm more worried about how they're dealing with Islam, but they
can always try to convert me...and lotsa luck to them...they'll need
it :->

> The same as Marxist?

True Marxists do not convert anyone, and they don't belong to
"Marxist" organizations or parties. Marxists should be everywhere,
suggesting changes in policy to the right and the left, as Marx
suggested in the Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848). I take it
you haven't read it yet, and I put on your booklist some time ago.

Marxists are far from being the monolithic bloc the far right has
become. They are a varied bunch with different opinions that are
suited to the specific situation.

For example, I can decide that the best thing for the US is to elect
George Bush for the first time in 2004 because only after another
four years of those shenanigans and loss of life will the people of
the United States realize how badly they've been cornholed by their
government.

>>Nope. I'll make you a deal. You argue my point, honestly and
>>cogently, with interest in winning it, and I'll argue yours. That
>>way, you get to see what I see, and I get to see what you see.
>
> And arguing you point, in the face of reality is useless.
> George Bush was legally elected to be the President of the United
> States. According to our laws and constitution.

And if he admitted that he had broken the law and faked the results
and lied about WMDs, or even just one of those things, would you ask
for his dismissal and imprisonment? How far are you willing to go
with this? Or let me put it another way. What do you get out of
Bush being president and not Kerry? How much of the wealth they
generate for their buddies actually finds its way into YOUR pocket?
A few sheckels? None? Are you deriving ANY economic benefits from
the Bush policies?

>>Couldn't be fairer than that. I'll even mentor you if you find it
>>difficult.
>
> Once again you arrogance is showing. You are not qualified to
> mentor, nor teach me anything.

I was being fair and open (and yes, I am qualified tomentor...it is a
large part of what I do for a living) and this is how you receive it.
Sorry, Pan. You need to learn to discuss things in a rational
manner.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>The
>>obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
>>dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.
>
> Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.
>
> You never had sensitivity training have you? :-)

I've had sensitivity training, but not thin-skin training (we Canadians
are not notoriously thin-skinned about our nation...and that is an
observation, not a slight). There's nothing I can do about how you
interpret what I write after I have written it as clearly as anyone
possibly could.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>The
>>obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
>>dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.
>
> Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.
>
> You never had sensitivity training have you? :-)

I've had sensitivity training, but not thin-skin training (we Canadians
are not notoriously thin-skinned about our nation...and that is an
observation, not a slight). There's nothing I can do about how you
interpret what I write after I have written it as clearly as anyone
possibly could.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

Pan Ohco > wrote in
:

>>The
>>obligation to read properly is yours, not mine and I don't have to
>>dumb things down. I expect more from the lot of you than that.
>
> Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.
>
> You never had sensitivity training have you? :-)

I've had sensitivity training, but not thin-skin training (we Canadians
are not notoriously thin-skinned about our nation...and that is an
observation, not a slight). There's nothing I can do about how you
interpret what I write after I have written it as clearly as anyone
possibly could.

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

(aka Brad) wrote in
news
> On 28 Aug 2004 23:49:10 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
m:
>>
>>> You are off topic.
>>> Please take your political topics to a political newsgroup.
>>
>>This is an unmoderated newsgroup...go **** yourself.
>
> Your internet service will be permanently disabled within the next
> 24 hours.

Hey, my "internet" service has been permanently disabled!!! I have
no communication with anyone even though I pay an ISP to provide me
with unlimited access...oh, wait, it's usenet-
who's so full of shit it's no wonder his
eyes are brown. Hey Brad...how're you doing :-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

(aka Brad) wrote in
news
> On 28 Aug 2004 23:49:10 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
>
wrote in
m:
>>
>>> You are off topic.
>>> Please take your political topics to a political newsgroup.
>>
>>This is an unmoderated newsgroup...go **** yourself.
>
> Your internet service will be permanently disabled within the next
> 24 hours.

Hey, my "internet" service has been permanently disabled!!! I have
no communication with anyone even though I pay an ISP to provide me
with unlimited access...oh, wait, it's usenet-
who's so full of shit it's no wonder his
eyes are brown. Hey Brad...how're you doing :-)

--

German to Picasso in front of Guernica: Did you do this?
Picasso to German in front of Guernica: No, it was you.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Aug 2004 16:16:41 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
Snip n snip
> Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.
>
> Pan Ohco
Apparantly - YES! - at least when it comes to explaining his points to you.

"Pan Ohco" > wrote in message
...
> On 31 Aug 2004 16:16:41 GMT, Michel Boucher >
> wrote:
Snip n snip
> Oh you have to dumb things down for us USAians.
>
> Pan Ohco
Apparantly - YES! - at least when it comes to explaining his points to you.

RMiller wrote:
>>Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
>>finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
>>is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
>>sound of beer cans popping open.
>>
>>And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
>>become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
>>time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
>>think you need to think through your blatant bias.
>>--
>>Alan
>>
>
> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not service
> unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would disagree
> with you.
>
> As for blatant bias... Look in the mirror, if you would like to see someone
> with bias.
> Rosie

I never said that service in Guard is not service. I said HIS service
was not service. Missed it, did you!!

Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
bullets.
--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

RMiller wrote:
>>Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
>>finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
>>is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
>>sound of beer cans popping open.
>>
>>And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
>>become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
>>time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
>>think you need to think through your blatant bias.
>>--
>>Alan
>>
>
> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not service
> unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would disagree
> with you.
>
> As for blatant bias... Look in the mirror, if you would like to see someone
> with bias.
> Rosie

I never said that service in Guard is not service. I said HIS service
was not service. Missed it, did you!!

Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
bullets.
--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Hairy wrote:

> "RMiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
>>>finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
>>>is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
>>>sound of beer cans popping open.
>>>
>>>And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
>>>become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
>>>time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
>>>think you need to think through your blatant bias.
>>>--
>>>Alan
>>>
>>
>> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not
>
> service
>
>>unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would
>
> disagree
>
>>with you.
>
>
>
>>Rosie
>
>
> Service in the National Guard is just as honorable as in any other branch.
> Using family and political connections to jump to the head of the line is
> not honorable. He was not willing to put his life on the line for his
> country, but seems to have no qualms about sending others to fight and die
> in a war that he was determined to start.
> H
>
>
Now cut that out, unless you wish to be called biased. Seems Republicans
can only criticize real war vets, with navy records to boot. Just
don't pick on the Moron because he jumped to head of line, then deserted
from the Guard. Not too many people can claim joining the Guard and then
deserting. Must be some kind of record.

Next thing you know, you will tell me he still drinks.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Hairy wrote:

> "RMiller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Really, if that was the case, how come Georgie couldn't stick around to
>>>finish it. To call someone lying and laying around in Alabama "service"
>>>is pure fantasy. The only sound of "gunfire" Bush ever heard was the
>>>sound of beer cans popping open.
>>>
>>>And, just how long does it take in service in combat to be killed or
>>>become a hero. Or am I missing something? Do you mean there is a minimum
>>>time requirement for getting shot at or killed, or becoming a hero? I
>>>think you need to think through your blatant bias.
>>>--
>>>Alan
>>>
>>
>> Oh I am sorry you feel that service in the National Guard is not
>
> service
>
>>unless they are fired upon. I am certain there are some who would
>
> disagree
>
>>with you.
>
>
>
>>Rosie
>
>
> Service in the National Guard is just as honorable as in any other branch.
> Using family and political connections to jump to the head of the line is
> not honorable. He was not willing to put his life on the line for his
> country, but seems to have no qualms about sending others to fight and die
> in a war that he was determined to start.
> H
>
>
Now cut that out, unless you wish to be called biased. Seems Republicans
can only criticize real war vets, with navy records to boot. Just
don't pick on the Moron because he jumped to head of line, then deserted
from the Guard. Not too many people can claim joining the Guard and then
deserting. Must be some kind of record.

Next thing you know, you will tell me he still drinks.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

Pan Ohco wrote:

> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:04:27 GMT, alzelt
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>>Serving proudly, and fighting unjustified wars are not the same. But, he
>>is entitled to same rights as anyone. I just happen to think my serving
>>in Vietnam was dishonorable to the ideals of America.
>
>
> Tell me Alan did you cut off peoples heads and ears. Did you burn
> villages and kill livestock.
>
> Are you not mad that Kerry gave the impression that you did.
> Pan Ohco

No, I guess I didn't. Lt. Wm. Calley beat me to it.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

>
>Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
>biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
>bullets.

I think I understand now. Clinton dodging the draft did it legally with
deferrments. Cheney a nd friends dodged the draft with illegal deferments!!..
Rosie

>
>Not me, unless you consider someone who has actually served in Nam
>biased against the likes of Bush and Chaney who dodged everything but
>bullets.

I think I understand now. Clinton dodging the draft did it legally with
deferrments. Cheney a nd friends dodged the draft with illegal deferments!!..
Rosie

RMiller wrote:

>>
>>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>>
>
>
>
> I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been truthful
> about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff just
> gets in the way...
>
> I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really pretty
> fair!!.
>
> Rosie

Can you never get anything correct? Your source that he shot himself
please!!!

Last time I saw, he had a legal deferrment, just like Chaney, Wolfowitz,
et. al. Or should YOU now call them draft dodgers, too.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004

RMiller wrote:

>>
>>People like you who are nitpicking Kerry's record are really pitiful. I
>>suppose if he had served for 2 years and lost a leg you would be pointing
>>out that "it's only 2 years" and "it was only one leg." If shrubby had
>>Kerry's military record you would be trumpeting it to the heavens.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Peter Aitken
>>
>>Remove the crap from my email address before using.
>>
>
>
>
> I am really only wanting to nit pick om the things he has not been truthful
> about, Christmas in Cambodia, wounding himself etc etc. This other stuff just
> gets in the way...
>
> I did vote for Clinton who was a draft dodger, so I guess I am really pretty
> fair!!.
>
> Rosie

Can you never get anything correct? Your source that he shot himself
please!!!

Last time I saw, he had a legal deferrment, just like Chaney, Wolfowitz,
et. al. Or should YOU now call them draft dodgers, too.

--


"I don't think you can win the war on terror."

...George (flip-flop) Bush, 8/30/2004