Run In With Mr. Edwards

In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

That's not what he said. Basically, if you aren't old enough to have been
affected by
Vietnam, you have no business criticizing either those who served in it
or those who
protested the war for doing so. Want to talk about Kerry's record in the
Senate, go
ahead, but if you're under 50, shut up about Vietnam.

So, if you are under, say 100, shut up about slavery?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...
[...] if you're under 50, shut up about Vietnam.

I'm under 50. Does that mean I also ought to refrain from finding fault in
our country's history with respect to racial civil rights, suffrage, robber
barons, sweat shops, and a host of other not-so-proud moments all of which
happened before I was born?

Sorry, but that's just BS. You can argue that it's important for someone
commenting today to maintain an appropriate perspective, taking into account
the social environment of the time, but you cannot hope to seriously claim
that just because a person wasn't there, they have no business discussing
the situation, or even offering an opinion.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:


Generally speaking, the more important a race is, the less likely someone
not from the two primary parties will win. At the lowest level (municipal
elections), races are (almost?) always non-partisan, so all sorts of folks
could get office. But they have little more influence than deciding things
like how many sidewalks to build, and who in the city pays for them.

Jesse "the body" Ventura.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

but if you're under 50, shut up about Vietnam.

Bull****.

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article , "G.R. Patterson III"
wrote:

That's not what he said. Basically, if you aren't old enough to have
been
affected by
Vietnam, you have no business criticizing either those who served in it
or those who
protested the war for doing so. Want to talk about Kerry's record in the
Senate, go
ahead, but if you're under 50, shut up about Vietnam.

So, if you are under, say 100, shut up about slavery?

And if you're under 200, shut up about the American Revolution.

Take a look at Ashcroft's statements before joining the Bush
administration.
He was rabidly biased towards state's rights. Since joining the Bush
administration, he's taken a very federalist view.

I've no idea what prompted this change. Is he burying his own opinions in
favor of those of his boss (not unreasonable)? Did something actually
change his mind?

Bush himself was against nation-building and strongly in favor of free
trade.

You make your statement as if Ashcroft's and Bush's philosophical changes
occurred in a vacuum.

Both men have been influenced by 9/11, and the resulting war. It's hard to
worry too much about state's rights and to be against nation building when
you're leading a country at war.

State's Rights and free trade are subjugated during wartime -- and always
have been. Don't worry -- they'll be back again, after this one is over.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Bob Noel wrote:

So, if you are under, say 100, shut up about slavery?

I don't know any slave owners, and I'd bet you don't either.

George Patterson
If you want to know God's opinion of money, just look at the people
he gives it to.

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 8...
Jim Weir wrote

Lots of us blasted the behavior of our country at that time. This
country was wrong. We had no business being over there.

Yes, we did. We did not have a DIRECT interest, and we fought a half-assed
effort, but consider this:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/081204I.html

/excerpt
Fight When We Have To, Even If We Can't Win.



The Battle of Pearl Harbor was a lost cause. Korea was nearly one. And
Vietnam, given the constraints, was almost certainly a losing proposition.



Yet we fought in those places.



We fought at Bull Run, too. And we fought at Kasserine Pass, and Manila, and
Bastogne, and Hue, and on Flight 93. We even won at a couple of those
places, even though the cause seemed lost.


/end excerpt

I did my 'Nam time in 1967, only about 150 combat flying hours.
No medals to throw away when I got home, but I sure-as-hell
resigned my Naval Commision as soon as I returned state-side.
We had absolutely NO business being there.
I feel the same as Jim...if you weren't there, you have no right
to critisize anyone.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote
Want to talk about Kerry's record in the Senate, go
ahead, but if you're under 50, shut up about Vietnam

What a load of crap. Okay, then lets throw out all the history
books in schools then. First off, this is the US, nobody's
going to tell me what I can and can't talk about. Secondly,
if we dont learn from history, we're surely to make the
same mistakes. Thirdly, someone's going to have to clean
up the mess most of the baby boomer generation is making
for everyone behind them.
Nobody walks in anyones boots as everyone has different
experiences, and things to offer.
I dont know about you, but I'm seeing a hell of a lot of
Gen Y'rs out there in Afghanistan and Iraq trying to take
care of the decades of mistakes that has lead to terrorism
and these rogue states. I bet you over 50'rs want to talk
for them, too. Would you like them to tell you to shut
up when they and the rest of us keep up your daily
supply of Depends in the future?

File this garbage along with the pack of "almost" 'Nam
vet nonsense.

Chris

--
Steve Bosell for President 2004
"Vote for me or I'll sue you"
www.philhendrieshow.com

"Newps" wrote in message
...
Jesse "the body" Ventura.

A) He ran for a state office (Governor), not a municipal office.
B) Huh? Is that supposed to mean something?

Take your pick. Did you have a point?