So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry. What he
did after the war was unforgivable to many. Hell, even folks in his
own home state question his patriotism -- yeah, yeah, I know, we
elected him to the Senate, but no one has ever run against him.

Of the two choices, Bush had to be my choice. I could not vote for
Kerry because I feel he is a traitor. The problem is, Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.

Dave

Traitor? When was Kerry convicted as a traitor? Or are your feelings enough
to convict a person of high crimes?

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Just in case you are not familiar with the legalality of the term "traitor":
"As in any other criminal trial in the United States, a defendant charged
with treason is presumed innocent until proved guilty Beyond a Reasonable
Doubt. Treason may be proved by a voluntary confession in open court or by
evidence that the defendant committed an Overt Act of treason. Each overt
act must be witnessed by at least two people, or a conviction for treason
will not stand. By requiring this type of direct evidence, the Constitution
minimizes the danger of convicting an innocent person and forestalls the
possibility of partisan witch-hunts waged by a single adversary."
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/traitor

Op

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:07:30 -0500, "Opus--Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

This is not a difficult question, but if you are going to continue to
"Swiftboat" Kerry, you should at least be able to provide the evidence.

Where did I say anything about *Swiftboats", Mark? I am talking about
is lying, under oath, before congress, while still in uniform. I am
talking about his trip to Paris to meet secretly with the deligation
from North Viet Nam, while still in uniform. Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy. The man did not receive an
honorable discharge from the Navy (which has nothing to do with
treason, but *does* speak volumes of his character).

Davie

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Both actions gave
comfort and support to our enemy.

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

oh, sure, Scott....jump on the easy exampleg!
Tom
p.s. Why is it that that event hasn't been questioned more?

"Tom Littleton" wrote in news:fy_tj.21643$s33.3609
@trndny06:


p.s. Why is it that that event hasn't been questioned more?


The first chapter of one of Michael Moore's books deals extensively with
this. The "his family had no involvement with bin Laden" just holds zero
water.

It hasn't been investigated, as NOTHING (aside from the Plame leak, where a
convenient scapegoat was hung out to dry) has been investigated, including
whether the launching of a war thats killed tens of thousands was built on
a pack of systematic lies (you'd think we'd start there, wouldn't you) or
what citizens has the US been spying on without court approval, or have
signing statements violated separation of powers, etc.




--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

On 17 Feb 2008 17:49:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

So did the US evacuation of the Bin Laden family when every other
nonmilitary flight was grounded.

You're reaching, Scott. Our fight is not with his family.

Dave




Dave, there really is plenty of evidence that many of his family members
that were evacuated were/are providing financial support. Plus, one week
or so (the time between the event and the evacuation) really wasn't long
enought to determine whether all of these folks were or were not material
witnesses. They were evacuated because the Bushes, the Carlyle Group, and
the bin Laden's are tight, pure and simple. Think about it-- the WTC falls
down around our ankles, and one of the governement's first acts is to
remember to exempt a nonmilitary flight from the shutdown so the bin Ladens
could be evacuated. It stinks to high heaven, Dave. Why do you continue
to excuse it?

Let's not forget the "blame Iraq, but evacuate the bin Laden's", which is
evidence that the big lie for war was waiting in the wings.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 17 Feb 2008 18:47:15 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Why do you continue
to excuse it?

I don't excuse it, Scott, I just think it is not that big a deal.

You excuse my feelings about the shame of Clinton in the WH. No
difference.

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

.....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.