McCain in '08

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

You brought up John Kerry. And if you are such a stickler for accuracy
regarding John Kerry, let's take a look at his political record. Please
tell us
all of the bills

I don't work for Kerry, don't endorse Kerry, don't care about Kerry, don't
have any interest in arguing for or against Kerry and further removing the
discussion from the newsgroup topic.

If you're trying to corner my into defending John Kerry's politics or
something, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Please tell us his attendance record

What am I, his press secretary? Do your own homework. I'm not interested
in doing it for you, nor am I interested in Kerry's politics enough sk you
to explain your point.

Settle down, Beavis.

-c

"Owen Hiller" wrote in message
...

Ah, right. Just happened to organize and go public during an election
year,
specifically for the purpose of discrediting, gee, a presidential
candidate.

Yeah, uh, nothing "political at all." Yeesh.

Umm, sorry to remind you, but it was John F. Kerry who decided


HEY, SMART GUY, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DECIDED, ARE WE?
WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN TALKING ABOUT WHAT JOHN KERRY DID?

In 2004, a bill to extend unemployment benefits failed because of one vote.
Kerry didn't even bother to show up.

*shaking my head, baffled.* This is not a John Kerry debate, is it?

-c

That's unfortunately too common. I've spoken with vets of my grandfather's

crew. Two loved telling the stories, possibly embellished a bit. The
copilot became angry when I suggested the notion that B-17s were ever NOT

olive drab, (the surviving '96th plane is bare aluminum), and the pilot
won
the DFC, served in the Berlin Airlift, flew in Korea and Vietnam and
after

he died, when I spoke to his daughter, I discovered he'd told me more
about
his service on the phone one time while waiting for my grandfather to
come

to the phone than he had ever told anybody in his family.

Similarly, I found out recently that my uncle is a retired Sgt. Major and
he
won't even discuss which units he was in. Bronze stars from different
wars,
PHs, we know he was captured by the Germans and escaped twice, and his
wife
says he has two old footlockers filled with photos he took in Anzio or
somewhere, but his adult children have never seen them.

Sad, but, I figure they've earned that right if they choose to bury all
of

it.

-c



Agreed again Gatt. Having never served myself, I nevertheless think it is
despicable that people have the audacity to criticize a soldier's actions
in combat. My dad was just a kid when he served, and I can't possibly
imagine the horror he witnessed and endured.

He earned the right to take whatever he witnessed and participated in,
privately, to his grave. Even though I only indirectly understand the
effects that combat can have on a man, I can do get upset with those that
try to use their military service for political opportunism, and would
never vote for such a person. McCain, to me, does not fit into that
category, from everything I've read about the man...

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll. You're suggesting that the group should be created without a
long enough period of discussion.

PJR :-)
--
_ _(o)_(o)_ _ Tired of the same old posters in your
.._\`:_ F S M _:' \_, newsgroup? Why not visit news.groups.reviews
/ (`---'\ `-. and attract new talent by posting a review?
,-` _) (_, F_P (Please read the posting guidelines.)

Peter J Ross wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in news.groups:

Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to
aviation is inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm
not mistaken, the 'R' in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by
the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

Troll.

I'm not Dangerous(r) though. Just a bit tingly.\

You're suggesting that the group should be created without a long
enough period of discussion

There should be a better way to do it.

B/

"Brian Mailman" wrote in message
...
Sam Spade wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

B/

Then it's a lost cause. USdotSplat is a bombed out open field these days.

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
wrote:

Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.

So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 20:31:13 GMT, in news.groups, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:02:52 -0700, Brian Mailman
wrote in ::


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate

Sounds like that would belong in us.*

So to internationalize the newsgroup name, call it
rec.aviation.icao.regulations. But that would probably exclude
military operations. :-)

That's why I suggest rec.aviation.regulations. It covers all
regulations at all levels, and is /not/ nation-specific.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired

Henrietta K Thomas wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:10:23 -0700, in news.groups, Sam Spade
wrote:


Jim Riley wrote:


I think some discussion of politics and policy related to aviation is
inevitable in the rec.aviation.* groups. If I'm not mistaken, the 'R'
in IFR stands for "rules" promulgated by the FAA.


So, form a group called rec.faa.regulations.debate


I would object to that on the following grounds:

1. Any new group in rec.aviation.* should start with rec.aviation.

2. To my knowledge, the FAA not an international institution.

3. *.regulations.debate is rather long and, IMO, not too meaningful.

If you want a group to discuss government regulations, I'd suggest
calling it rec.aviation.regulations. That is broad enough to cover
regulations everywhere without singling out any particular national
institution.

Henrietta K. Thomas
Proponent, soc.support.vision-impaired


My suggestion was in jest. I have no idea about the protocol of the
Usenet. Does "rec" stand for recreation? If so, there is nothing
recreational about regulatory combat. ;-)