"bb" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:31 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:

is traitorous.

Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:07:45 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

But the shoe doesn't fit. Those who put forth other options for
handling issues are not traitors. Those that use the traitor tag for
political gain come much closer to fitting that description.

bb

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...


Bush has got to go, before we're blown off the face of the earth.

You guys said the same thing about Reagan's nuclear brinkmanship with the
Soviet Union. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now.

bb wrote:

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:07:45 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


Now we've finally gotten to the bottom of this. He's charged as being
a traitor. Interesting the staunchest Bush supporters have put the
traitor label on all who didn't support the administrations policies
and methods. It certainly can't be any big surprise your crowd is
trying to pin the label on Kerry, now that he looks like the likely
democratic candidate. Anyone who dared run against Bush would have
quickly been labeled a traitor.

If the shoe fits...

But the shoe doesn't fit. Those who put forth other options for
handling issues are not traitors. Those that use the traitor tag for
political gain come much closer to fitting that description.

bb


It's the latest iteration of the idiotic "my country right or wrong"
kind of thinking that kept us in Vietnam and ended up costing 55,000 US
lives and at least a million Vietnamese.

BTW, the latest CBS poll has Kerry five points ahead of Bush. "Bush's
economic recovery is almost as bad as his recession."



--
Show George W. Bush the Door...in 2004.

The Kerry email that you quoted was 1- sent to news agencies 2- did not
have any intent of "undermining the authority of the incumbent President."



NOYB wrote:
Sure it did.

Sorry, it is obvious that you're in full BushCo propaganda parrot mode.
However I stick around one more post to deflate your claims


These are precisely the type of ones you use to undermine a leader:

'The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of
important international initiatives"

That is stating a very obvious fact... pretty much in the exact words
used by either Bush or Cheney at one time or another. In other words,
Dick Cheney can announce that the US will act unilaterally and rejects
other nations initiatives, but Kerry cannot say they have done so....
very nice...



As a senator, he has no right to screw with our country's foreign policy.

But as a Presidential candidate, he has every right to announce what his
future policy goals will be... which is what he has done.

In other words, you're just mindlessly carping about Kerry because he's
not Bush... gee what agenda do you have in mind?



If he wants to voice his concerns on the Senate floor, then that's his
right...and his responsibility. But to do it through an email to a foreign
news agency is traitorous.

But wait, first you said he sent this email to 'foreign intelligence
agencies' and now it's just plain news? In other words, you are lying
out your butt to try and make Kerry look bad?

Good thing you didn't have any credibility to start with, NOBBY, because
you would have just shredded it

DSK

Very good! In last week's attack on the Iraqi police station, several of the
attackers were found to be Lebanese, which, as you pointed out, means they
were from Lebanon. Don't worry so much about Iran. There's quite a movement
afoot there to stem the influence of Islamic nut-cases. That country will be
valuable to us in the future and it won't require military persuasion. You
will need to seek your fantasies and hard-ons elsewhere.

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
Lebanon?


"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


It's sounds like an olive branch to me...and the Iranians will read it
as
appeasement. In other words, should Kerry become President, he will
undo
what Bush has done, and remove the pressure on Iran. Why *wouldn't*
the
Iranians view that as an open invitation to continue stirring up
unrest
in
Iraq? It's in their best interest to have Kerry as US
President...rather
than Bush.

It's a blessing to have a guy like you to learn from. Here's your
chance:
What country are Lebanese people from?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
Very good! In last week's attack on the Iraqi police station, several of
the
attackers were found to be Lebanese

as well as other nationalities...

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...


I'm going to use lots of white space here to make it simpler for you to
follow along. If it seems the message has ended, be sure to page down and
check first.

These are all positive goals. Why do you have a problem with them?

Because I feel as though our "damaged" credibility, damaged alliances, and
heightened tension is with countries that we shouldn't be reaching out to
in
the first place. For instance, our supposed allies...France, Russia and
China...were secretly skirting the Iraqi arms embargo, and were making
under-the-table oil deals with Saddam should sanctions be removed. We
don't
owe them an apology.

Translation: Profit-making entities were making oil deals which depended on
certain political outcomes. Are you stupid enough to think American
companies don't do that every single day, with every natural resource you
can name? Answer the question. Are you that stupid? It's yes or no.

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================



Meanwhile, Syria was sponsoring terrorist acts against Israel, laundering
money for Saddam, sending weapons to Iraq, and likely concealing Saddam's
WMD program. They are very likely next on our list after Iraq.

Are you stupid enough to lump Syria into the same category as France, Russia
and China? Yes or no?

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================




Iran also sponsors terrorist acts against our ally, Israel. They have
also
been pursuing nuclear weapons, and have been inciting unrest in Iraq to
damage US resolve. They should and will be dealt with once Bush is
reelected.

Pursuing nuclear weapons? Shut your cake hole. They're doing exactly what we
are - trying to expand their arsenal. On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

Messing with Israel and inciting unrest in Iraq? Shut your cake hole. We do
that all the time in our hemisphere. Ever heard of Colombia, El Salvador or
Panama?? Who said we're the only country which can exert influence, peaceful
or otherwise?

White space. Room for you to think.
=========================



The only reason Kerry felt it was "time" is because it's an election year.
He's a blatant hypocrite who fully supported the removal of Saddam from
power...until it became politically convenient to oppose it.

I guess you get your hard-ons from seeing people killed. I think that falls
under the heading of "psychopath". I get excited be seeing people finessed.
Must be a function of maturity.

"NOYB" wrote in message
news

We *should* strive to increase tensions with Iran. They're a terrorist
state that is trying to develop a nuclear weapons program.

It's the way to peace.

No. But, it's the way to disarmament.

If you're a moron.

Not applicable.

Disarmament? Over the next 10 years, which country do you believe will add
the largest number of TOTALLY NEW types of nuclear weapons to its
collection, while still maintaining the old ones in an operational state?



In other
words, he'd go back to the way things were before...when Libya was
developing WMD's, Saddam was developing missiles to strike Israel, and
Iran
was very actively pursuing a nuclear program.

In other words? Actually, that's a conclusion only a moron could make.

The only reason bin Laden hasn't successfully usurped power in the Middle
East is because of our presence over there. Kerry would remove the
cat...and once again, the mice would play.

Bin Laden, eh? I'm sure you've answered this question before, but try again.
Definition of "news source": One whose stories on one topic last more than 2
minutes. With that in mind, which news sources do you listen to regularly?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
On the spectrum of angels, we're the
closest thing to the devil.

I think that about sums up your feelings for our country.