"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Please quote the part of Kerry's message that encourages "Iranian
insurgents" to attack our troops.


NOYB wrote:
Are you being intentionally obtuse? It's no secret that Bush has been
putting the heat on Iran.


I am not "obtuse" at all, however I do not see public disagreement with
BushCo as "treason." Obviously, you do. I thought GW Bush was President,
not Fuhrer.

You can publically disagree with Bush all you want. However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.






... Kerry's own email has stated his
administration would "strive to overcome tensions with others". 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.

Hardly.

First of all, Saddam's "missiles to strike Israel" are every bit as much
a fantasy as his WMD's.

Kay's report said that they had several missiles and missile programs that
were in violation of UN Res. 1441. In fact, Kay said they were much more
advanced in that area than we once thought.


Secondly, Iran is *still* pursuing a nuclear
weapons capability (or at least, as much of a one as they can afford)and
the Bush team is doing little or nothing to stop them...

You just right along and keep believing that they're doing nothing...
Iran is in our cross-hairs. Bet on it. We wouldn't have troops stationed
on their Western and Eastern borders if Bush didn't mean business.


kinda like
North Korea...

N. Korea was a situation where diplomacy (via China) has kept them at
bay...for now.



In other words, you are mindlessly spouting any and all BushCo
propaganda, no matter how slanderous, stupid, and blatantly untrue.

If the Bush worshippers keep hitting this "dissent equals treason"
button hard enough, they'll be out on their ear come November. Americans
don't like being pushed around. OTOH, maybe that's BushCo's plan... get
installed by the Supreme Court for a 2nd term, no matter what the
electorate decides, only maybe this time they will install him for
life... and change his title...

NOYB wrote:
You can publically disagree with Bush all you want.

I can, but you apparently cannot

.... However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.

Possibly so, did anybody do that?

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."

Looking at naked facts is apparently too embarrassing for your morality
& ethics...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
You can publically disagree with Bush all you want.

I can, but you apparently cannot

.... However, when you're a
US Senator, and you start sending emails to the intelligence communities
of
enemy nations...emails that have the intent of undermining the authority
of
the incumbent President...then you're a traitor.

Possibly so, did anybody do that?

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."

Sure it did.

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"

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

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

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


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

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


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

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

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


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

It's about time.

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


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

Some policies NEED to be undermined.


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

"actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the
past
three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both
parties over many decades and put many of our international
relationships
at
risk."

"restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world"

" repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so
damaged in the past few years"

"overcome tensions with others"

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.

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.

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.





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

It's about time.


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.

"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.

"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.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"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.

This is the morally bankrupt liberals battle cry.

Bob

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.

bb

"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...