Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day

Religions > Bible > Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Bill Levinson"
Date:	30 Jul 2004 11:54:37 AM
Object:	Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is sweating
like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it. http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html
Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.
--Bill
.

User: "Adam Warlock"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	30 Jul 2004 12:13:05 PM

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is sweating
like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it. http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted as
saying this (in 1998):
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he
has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy,
to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a
global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the
Middle East."
As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's no lie
there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time that he would
continue, but no informed person believed at that time that he would not. I
don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest, and
there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.
Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into war.
To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing that.
Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and illustrate
lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if they were
diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring to statements made
five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time can
change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced that
Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as justification
for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's organization.
Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we lying
or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	30 Jul 2004 12:28:24 PM

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is sweating
like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it. http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted as
saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he
has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy,
to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a
global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the
Middle East."

As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's no lie
there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time that he would
continue, but no informed person believed at that time that he would not. I
don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest, and
there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into war.
To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing that.
Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and illustrate
lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if they were
diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring to statements made
five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time can
change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced that
Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as justification
for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's organization.
Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we lying
or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

And then there is the habit of our President to take a minority opinion and
state it as fact (The uranium in Africa is a nice example.) in order to
promote his agenda. That is even more of a lie than a lie of omission.
Joe
.

User: "Bill Levinson"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	30 Jul 2004 12:57:46 PM

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is sweating
like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it. http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted as
saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he
has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy,
to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East.
It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a
global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the
Middle East."

As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's no lie
there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time that he would
continue, but no informed person believed at that time that he would not. I
don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest, and
there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into war.
To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing that.
Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and illustrate
lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if they were
diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring to statements made
five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time can
change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced that
Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as justification
for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's organization.
Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we lying
or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is far
from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html
I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us that he
no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people. He was known
to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.
I think Kerry is opportunistically using the fact that no WMDs were
found to advance his own candidacy along the "winning is the only thing"
line (which Vince Lombardi incidentally never said: he said "winning
isn't everything but playing to win is" or something to that effect).
--Bill
.

User: "Larry Hewitt"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	30 Jul 2004 01:34:50 PM

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on

global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the
Middle East."

As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's no lie
there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time that he would
continue, but no informed person believed at that time that he would

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing

that.

Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and illustrate
lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if they were
diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring to statements

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

No, he was not. He was _alleged_ to be playing shell games, which we now
know he was not doing - because he had no WMDs.
A few highlights.
- In 1995 Kamel Hussein, the head of the Iraq WMD program, defected. He said
that most of the Iraqi WMDs were detoryed in 1991 before the inspectors came
so Iraq could deny they ever even existed. He was also instrumental in
securing the release of hundreds of thousands of pages of di\ocumentation
about the WMD programs.
- By 1998 Kamel's claims ahd been confirmed - the VX, Sarin, and other
stocks had been destroyed. The UN, CIA, and MI6 were aware of this. By this
time the search was more about paperwork than actual weapons.
- By 2001 Rumsfeld and Cheney were stating they had specific information
about the location of Iraqi WMDs, but would not release that info to the UN
inspectors. When they finally did nothing was found, and the inspectors
ridiculed the US claims.
- The INC was the source of much of the humint. Many intelligence services
were not happy with this intel. For example, the infamous curveball. He had
defected to the German BND, telling tales of Iraqi mobile bio weapons labs -
the labs the administration claimed were the "strongest evidenve" that Iraqi
WMDs existed. But the Germans didn't believe him. Others had problems with
Chalabi himself, and his lieutenants, by 2001.
-
This scepticism avbout the veracity of the WMD claims was why Germany,
France, and others refused to support a UN resolution for war. They didn;t
believe the claims.

I think Kerry is opportunistically using the fact that no WMDs were
found to advance his own candidacy along the "winning is the only thing"
line (which Vince Lombardi incidentally never said: he said "winning
isn't everything but playing to win is" or something to that effect).

Believe what you want. They weren;t there. Bush lead us into a war that is
costing us thousands of dead and wounded and billions of dollars for
NOTHING. And many new it before the invasion.
Larry

--Bill

User: "ouroboros rex"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	30 Jul 2004 02:14:13 PM

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing

that.

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is far
from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html

Who sent in the troops without doing his homework? Shrubbo the Clown,
that's who.

I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us that he
no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people. He was known
to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.

Inspections.

That would mean bush hadn't lied. Which he did, on purpose. If there
were WMDs, Kerry would be SOL, yes?
.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 09:34:02 AM

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<cee6m4$462$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing

that.

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is far
from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html

Who sent in the troops without doing his homework? Shrubbo the Clown,
that's who.

I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us that he
no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people. He was known
to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.

Inspections.

That would mean bush hadn't lied. Which he did, on purpose.

Bush did not lie about WMD's; he had no reason to believe his
statements were false.
Michael
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 11:20:09 AM

Michael Ejercito wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<cee6m4$462$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in his
own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat with
respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to areas
outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to illustrate
unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far from showing

that.

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and, of
course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply a
double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is far
from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html

Who sent in the troops without doing his homework? Shrubbo the Clown,
that's who.

I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us that he
no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people. He was known
to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.

Inspections.

That would mean bush hadn't lied. Which he did, on purpose.

Bush did not lie about WMD's; he had no reason to believe his
statements were false.

You mean that the fact that his previous speeches had it edited out
by the CIA, and that the CIA thought it was edited out this time, and
the shrub's mis-handlers added it back in, and our President, the
parrot, merely squalked out what was on the teleprompter, absolves
him? It was either his lie or a lie of his closest appointed
advisors and he was just ignorant of this important fact supporting
his preformed adgenda. The buck stops where? Do we need this
kind of ignorance in the hot seat?
Joe
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 04:13:19 PM

Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:yp6dnVx_6ZMxW5bcRVn-jg@comcast.com:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:<cee6m4$462$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught in
his own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that you
provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He is
quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities
on

global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in
the Middle East."

As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's no
lie there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time that he
would continue, but no informed person believed at that time that he
would

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat
with respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words
attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to
areas outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to
illustrate unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far
from showing

that.

Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and
illustrate lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if
they were diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring to
statements

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span of
time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration and,
of course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly
convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to apply
a double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is
far from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html

Who sent in the troops without doing his homework? Shrubbo the
Clown,
that's who.

I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us that
he no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people. He was
known to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.

Inspections.

I think Kerry is opportunistically using the fact that no WMDs were
found to advance his own candidacy along the "winning is the only
thing" line (which Vince Lombardi incidentally never said: he said
"winning isn't everything but playing to win is" or something to that
effect).

That would mean bush hadn't lied. Which he did, on purpose.

Bush did not lie about WMD's; he had no reason to believe his
statements were false.

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 04:26:19 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:80593fe264855820cc01231c34594322@news.bubbanews.com:

Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in
news:yp6dnVx_6ZMxW5bcRVn-jg@comcast.com:

Michael Ejercito wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:<cee6m4$462$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/lying.html

Kerry either lied about WMDs yesterday or in 1998. He got caught
in his own web of lies.

I caught the acceptance speech yesterday and I read the site that
you provided above, Bill. I'm not seeing a clear connection. He
is quoted

saying this (in 1998):

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it
clear

that he

has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and

secrecy,

to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the
Middle

East.

It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist
activities on

global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly
in the Middle East."

As of 1998, Saddam had used such weapons, had he not? So there's
no lie there. I don't recall if he made it clear at that time
that he would continue, but no informed person believed at that
time that he would

not. I

don't think we have a lie there, either. He certain was a threat
with respect to terrorist activities, as his own actions and words
attest,

and

there is no reason to doubt that, in 1998, Saddam was a threat to
areas outside the Middle East.

Last night, Senator Kerry told us that he would not "mislead" us
into

war.

To claim that this is a lie would be to know and be able to
illustrate unequivocally that he would do so. The web site is far
from showing

that.

Claims that these statements are apparently contradictory and
illustrate lying don't follow from the quotes themselves. Even if
they were diametrically opposed--and they are not--we're referring
to statements

made

five years apart. What might be known to be true over that span
of time

can

change dramatically. After all, many in the Bush Administration
and, of course, Bush supporters in the general public were utterly
convinced

that

Saddam had WMDs when we invaded (which is why it was used as

justification

for the invasion) and that he was tied directly to bin Laden's

organization.

Today we know that neither of these things are or were true. Were
we

lying

or were we mistaken? To say that we were simply mistaken is to
apply a double standard.

The problem is that Kerry is denouncing Bush as a liar when Bush is
far from the only person who thought Saddam had WMDs.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/iraq.html

Who sent in the troops without doing his homework? Shrubbo the
Clown,
that's who.

I am not sure what happened between 1998 and 2003 to convince us
that he no longer had the WMDs that he once used on his own people.
He was known to be playing shell games with the UN inspectors.

Inspections.

I think Kerry is opportunistically using the fact that no WMDs were
found to advance his own candidacy along the "winning is the only
thing" line (which Vince Lombardi incidentally never said: he said
"winning isn't everything but playing to win is" or something to
that effect).

That would mean bush hadn't lied. Which he did, on purpose.

Bush did not lie about WMD's; he had no reason to believe his
statements were false.

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.

Did he? Apparently Kerry also voted "yes" for the supplemental funding
bill on the first go-round. After that, republicans removed an amendment
that would have required strict accounting of all funds spent. Then
Kerry voted "no." Seems he voted *for* the funding but *against* the
lack of oversight. And now we hear stories about how the CPA frittered
away 25 billion dollars and has no paperwork accounting for how or where
that money was spent. Seems to me Kerry made the right decision.
You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 05:02:28 PM

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9537B181727ECbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:80593fe264855820cc01231c34594322@news.bubbanews.com:

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.

Did he? Apparently Kerry also voted "yes" for the supplemental funding
bill on the first go-round.

This has nothing to do with Kerry voting for the war.

After that, republicans removed an amendment
that would have required strict accounting of all funds spent. Then
Kerry voted "no." Seems he voted *for* the funding but *against* the
lack of oversight.

Despite that Kerry whined about how he couldn't leech the well off for the
money, the fact is that Kerry abandoned the troops in a time of need when
they needed it most. And then he has the audacity to blame Bush about the
troops suposedly not habing enough money to buy body armor when he voted
against the bill that would fund it. What an idiot.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 05:22:25 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:414f8770cfd27f452c7ea82135d04c2a@news.bubbanews.com:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:Xns9537B181727ECbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:80593fe264855820cc01231c34594322@news.bubbanews.com:

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.

Did he? Apparently Kerry also voted "yes" for the supplemental
funding bill on the first go-round.

This has nothing to do with Kerry voting for the war.

Despite that Kerry whined about how he couldn't leech the well off for
the money, the fact is that Kerry abandoned the troops in a time of
need when they needed it most. And then he has the audacity to blame
Bush about the troops suposedly not habing enough money to buy body
armor when he voted against the bill that would fund it. What an
idiot.

1) Kerry voted *for* the funding
2) Kerry voted *against* stripping accountability from the bill
3) The vast bulk of the money in that bill is currently unspent.
The bill was passed - Bush still won't adequately supply the troops
because he's busy figuring out who to transfer the money to Halliburton -
who keeps ripping off the American tax-payers with impunity because
republicans stripped the funding bill of all oversight.
BTW, the time the troops need us most is today and Bush has totally
abandoned them. They are undersupplied, undermanned and moral is *****.
Hallbiburton truck drivers get paid ten times what army truck drivers get
paid even though they are all paid by the America tax-payers. One of our
local National Guard units came home two weeks ago. They are so
completely demoralized it's scary. And they have to go back in November.
Not one of the people I talked to blames Kerry. They all blame Bush. But
then, they've been in Iraq for a year and haven't heard the right-wing
spin yet.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 05:20:23 PM

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9537BB04ACA2EbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:414f8770cfd27f452c7ea82135d04c2a@news.bubbanews.com:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:Xns9537B181727ECbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:80593fe264855820cc01231c34594322@news.bubbanews.com:

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.

Did he? Apparently Kerry also voted "yes" for the supplemental
funding bill on the first go-round.

This has nothing to do with Kerry voting for the war.

Despite that Kerry whined about how he couldn't leech the well off for
the money, the fact is that Kerry abandoned the troops in a time of
need when they needed it most. And then he has the audacity to blame
Bush about the troops suposedly not habing enough money to buy body
armor when he voted against the bill that would fund it. What an
idiot.

1) Kerry voted *for* the funding
2) Kerry voted *against* stripping accountability from the bill
3) The vast bulk of the money in that bill is currently unspent.

The bill was passed - Bush still won't adequately supply the troops
because he's busy figuring out who to transfer the money to Halliburton
- who keeps ripping off the American tax-payers with impunity because
republicans stripped the funding bill of all oversight.

BTW, the time the troops need us most is today and Bush has totally
abandoned them. They are undersupplied, undermanned and moral is *****.
Hallbiburton truck drivers get paid ten times what army truck drivers
get paid even though they are all paid by the America tax-payers. One of
our local National Guard units came home two weeks ago. They are so
completely demoralized it's scary. And they have to go back in November.
Not one of the people I talked to blames Kerry. They all blame Bush. But
then, they've been in Iraq for a year and haven't heard the right-wing
spin yet.

Yeah right. I guess that's why the military still overwhelmingly supports
Bush.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	01 Aug 2004 08:14:19 AM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:74d36e9b399df41944701619feedb50a@news.bubbanews.com:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
in news:Xns9537BB04ACA2EbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:414f8770cfd27f452c7ea82135d04c2a@news.bubbanews.com:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in news:Xns9537B181727ECbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
news:80593fe264855820cc01231c34594322@news.bubbanews.com:

John Kerry voted for the war based on the same intelligence.

Did he? Apparently Kerry also voted "yes" for the supplemental
funding bill on the first go-round.

This has nothing to do with Kerry voting for the war.

Despite that Kerry whined about how he couldn't leech the well off
for the money, the fact is that Kerry abandoned the troops in a time
of need when they needed it most. And then he has the audacity to
blame Bush about the troops suposedly not habing enough money to buy
body armor when he voted against the bill that would fund it. What
an idiot.

1) Kerry voted *for* the funding
2) Kerry voted *against* stripping accountability from the bill
3) The vast bulk of the money in that bill is currently unspent.

The bill was passed - Bush still won't adequately supply the troops
because he's busy figuring out who to transfer the money to
Halliburton - who keeps ripping off the American tax-payers with
impunity because republicans stripped the funding bill of all
oversight.

BTW, the time the troops need us most is today and Bush has totally
abandoned them. They are undersupplied, undermanned and moral is
*****. Hallbiburton truck drivers get paid ten times what army truck
drivers get paid even though they are all paid by the America
tax-payers. One of our local National Guard units came home two weeks
ago. They are so completely demoralized it's scary. And they have to
go back in November. Not one of the people I talked to blames Kerry.
They all blame Bush. But then, they've been in Iraq for a year and
haven't heard the right-wing spin yet.

Yeah right. I guess that's why the military still overwhelmingly
supports Bush.

They do? You surveyed them? Got a link? Got anythink other than the hot
air coming out your *****?
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Bill Levinson"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 04:32:39 PM

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/#2004 for royalty-free downloadable
Election 2004 leaflets. Spread the word about Kerry, Michael Moore, and
George Soros!
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kennedy.html Ted Kennedy, the heart
and soul of the Democratic Party.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 04:48:23 PM

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in news:XdUOc.21490
$iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is. Or do I need to
explain that to you again. I would have thought once was enough. Some folks
just have a harder time of it I guess.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Bill Levinson"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	31 Jul 2004 08:33:52 PM

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in news:XdUOc.21490
$iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html
--Bill
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/#2004 for royalty-free downloadable
Election 2004 leaflets. Spread the word about Kerry, Michael Moore, and
George Soros!
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kennedy.html Ted Kennedy, the heart
and soul of the Democratic Party.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	01 Aug 2004 08:23:48 AM

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:4MXOc.21705$iK.5794@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:XdUOc.21490 $iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

No Libertarian could support Bush unless they were really a republican
ashamed to admit it. Which, in fact, most "libertarians" are. Bush's
shameful budgets first and foremost would be the end of him for a
libertarian. Then there's the corporate welfare handouts. Then there is
the Patriot Act. Then there is the misuse of the military in Iraq.
Christ, you once listed 6 "strikes" against Kerry (3 of which actually
had nothing to do with him at all) yet you claim to a Libertarian
supporting Bush? What a crock. Now we all have proof you are a bald-faced
liar.
BTW, have you ever actually scored Bush against your little chart? Not to
mention that the chart itself is so extreme. But that might explain why
you support Bush.
BTW2, a quick google search for you as author and the word "Badnarik"
turns up exactly one post - a reply to me in which you say "I would mind
seeing win!" Nice to see you campaigning so hard for "your boy." Replace
"Badnarik" with "Browne" (as in Harry Browne, last LP candidate for
president) and you get two posts: one from *after* the 2000 election and
one from just before in which you say "Browne (whom I like)". Yes, we all
believe you are a Libertarian.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Bill Levinson"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	02 Aug 2004 07:48:21 PM

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:4MXOc.21705$iK.5794@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:XdUOc.21490 $iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

No Libertarian could support Bush unless they were really a republican
ashamed to admit it. Which, in fact, most "libertarians" are.

That is not true. We are in a Prisoners' Dilemma in which we have to
vote for Republicans to keep left-wing Democrats out. My choices seem to
be as follows:
(1) Vote Libertarian, in which case someone like Gore or Kerry wins and
enacts statist policies that are totally unacceptable to Libertarians.
(2) Vote Republican, in which case someone like Bush wins and enacts
only a few statist policies that are unacceptable to Libertarians while
repealing other policies (e.g. 1994 Lautenberg Assault Weapon ban,
Clinton's signature of the Kyoto Treaty, signature of a UN "small arms
treaty") that are unacceptable to Libertarians.
What would be great is a system in which you vote for your first,
second, and third choices. If your first choice craps out (eliminated
due to finishing last among the first choices), your second choice vote
goes to your second choice. Unfortunately, that means the Greens and the
like also would get more votes but that is democracy.

Bush's
shameful budgets first and foremost would be the end of him for a
libertarian.

I do not care for Bush's budget but do you think Kerry, the biggest
liberal in the Senate, would be better?

Then there's the corporate welfare handouts. Then there is
the Patriot Act.

Which of our civil rights has the Patriot Act really affected? Law
enforcement still cannot search us or our homes without a warrant or
probable cause.

Then there is the misuse of the military in Iraq.
Christ, you once listed 6 "strikes" against Kerry (3 of which actually
had nothing to do with him at all) yet you claim to a Libertarian
supporting Bush? What a crock. Now we all have proof you are a bald-faced
liar.

BTW, have you ever actually scored Bush against your little chart? Not to
mention that the chart itself is so extreme. But that might explain why
you support Bush.

BTW2, a quick google search for you as author and the word "Badnarik"
turns up exactly one post - a reply to me in which you say "I would mind
seeing win!"

I said I would NOT mind seeing him win.

Nice to see you campaigning so hard for "your boy." Replace
"Badnarik" with "Browne" (as in Harry Browne, last LP candidate for
president) and you get two posts: one from *after* the 2000 election and
one from just before in which you say "Browne (whom I like)". Yes, we all
believe you are a Libertarian.

I would not have minded seeing Browne win either but, as a practical
matter, I knew he was not going to win. The choices were coercive
collectivist UN-lover Gore versus Bush, not an ideal choice but still a
night-and-day difference between him and Gore.
You say you are a Libertarian; how do you feel about Kerry's statement
that he would subordinate the U.S. Armed Forces to the United Nations?
REAL Libertarians would like to see that building in New York shipped
off somewhere-- like France.
http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kerry/
(1) Kerry is a phony
(2) Tolerance of and association with racists and anti-Semites
(3) Michael Moore
(4) George Soros
(5) The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty
(6) John Kerry as America's Kurt Waldheim, betrayed fellow Vietnam
servicemen
(7) Iraq hypocrisy
--Bill
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	04 Aug 2004 08:41:23 AM

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:phBPc.23680$iK.12415@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:4MXOc.21705$iK.5794@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:XdUOc.21490 $iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more
I learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I
feel like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like
Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

No Libertarian could support Bush unless they were really a
republican ashamed to admit it. Which, in fact, most "libertarians"
are.

That is not true. We are in a Prisoners' Dilemma in which we have to
vote for Republicans to keep left-wing Democrats out. My choices seem
to be as follows:

This is a lie. The democrats are no more anti-libertarian than the
repubs. Probably less so. Bush is calling for centralization of
intelligence, no? Anti-lib. No drug negotiations under medicare? Anti-
lib. Subpoenaing library records and bookstore purchase records? Data
mining e-mail? Shielding prisoners at Gitmo from lawyers and courts?
Constitutional amendment on marriage? Huge deficits? Invading Iraq? And
on and on.

(1) Vote Libertarian, in which case someone like Gore or Kerry wins
and enacts statist policies that are totally unacceptable to
Libertarians.

(2) Vote Republican, in which case someone like Bush wins and enacts
only a few statist policies that are unacceptable to Libertarians
while repealing other policies (e.g. 1994 Lautenberg Assault Weapon
ban, Clinton's signature of the Kyoto Treaty, signature of a UN "small
arms treaty") that are unacceptable to Libertarians.

What would be great is a system in which you vote for your first,
second, and third choices. If your first choice craps out (eliminated
due to finishing last among the first choices), your second choice
vote goes to your second choice. Unfortunately, that means the Greens
and the like also would get more votes but that is democracy.

Bush's
shameful budgets first and foremost would be the end of him for a
libertarian.

I do not care for Bush's budget but do you think Kerry, the biggest
liberal in the Senate, would be better?

First of all, you do yourself no service trying to promulgate the lie
that Kerry is "biggest liberal in the Senate." But since lies and smears
are really all you have, I am not surprised.

Then there's the corporate welfare handouts. Then there is
the Patriot Act.

Which of our civil rights has the Patriot Act really affected? Law
enforcement still cannot search us or our homes without a warrant or
probable cause.

Wiretaps without warrants. Don't borrow any library books. Pay for all
your bookstore purchases with cash.

Then there is the misuse of the military in Iraq.
Christ, you once listed 6 "strikes" against Kerry (3 of which
actually had nothing to do with him at all) yet you claim to a
Libertarian supporting Bush? What a crock. Now we all have proof you
are a bald-faced liar.

BTW, have you ever actually scored Bush against your little chart?
Not to mention that the chart itself is so extreme. But that might
explain why you support Bush.

BTW2, a quick google search for you as author and the word "Badnarik"
turns up exactly one post - a reply to me in which you say "I would
mind seeing win!"

I said I would NOT mind seeing him win.

Sorry - typo - doesn't change the fact that you have only mentioned the
man once in your long and glorious posting history.

Nice to see you campaigning so hard for "your boy." Replace
"Badnarik" with "Browne" (as in Harry Browne, last LP candidate for
president) and you get two posts: one from *after* the 2000 election
and one from just before in which you say "Browne (whom I like)".
Yes, we all believe you are a Libertarian.

You are so cute with your descriptive tags. They mean so much. So you
picked a facist with dreams of dictatorship over a "coercive
collectivist." Cool.

You say you are a Libertarian; how do you feel about Kerry's statement
that he would subordinate the U.S. Armed Forces to the United Nations?

Quote?

REAL Libertarians would like to see that building in New York shipped
off somewhere-- like France.

*****.

http://www.stentorian.com/politics/kerry/
(1) Kerry is a phony

1) Proof?
2) How so different than Bush the spoiled Yankee turned cowboy? Complete
with part-time Texas accent.

(2) Tolerance of and association with racists and anti-Semites

Santorum? Lott? DeLay? Bob Jones University?

(3) Michael Moore

David Duke?

(4) George Soros

Richard Scaife?

(5) The Kyoto Global Warming Treaty

Expansion of Medicare and blocking negotiation on drug prices?

(6) John Kerry as America's Kurt Waldheim, betrayed fellow Vietnam
servicemen

Kerry only betrayed the corrupt leadership who lead us down the path of
an immoral war. Bush has waged an immoral war.

(7) Iraq hypocrisy

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Gactimus"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	05 Aug 2004 01:56:26 PM

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns953B62AF1638BbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

(7) Iraq hypocrisy

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

The poor pathetic left. Still stuck in a pre-9/11 world.
.

User: *"Dick \Go F%& Yourself\ Cheney"**
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	05 Aug 2004 02:10:36 PM

Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in news:1848047cf1497dcc77ffd2a94f6f0e71
@news.bubbanews.com:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns953B62AF1638BbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

(7) Iraq hypocrisy

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

The poor pathetic left. Still stuck in a pre-9/11 world.

So you are saying that 9/11 somehow made it possible to over-extend our
troops nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan without spreading them so
thin that we have nothing left to deal with Sudan, Iran or North Korea? I
think your ad hominem should have been self-directed.
--
Take Back America
Vote Libertarian
Elect Mike Badnarik
http://www.badnarik.org/
.

User: "Joe Blow"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	05 Aug 2004 02:21:22 PM

Gactimus wrote:

"***** \"Go F%*& Yourself\" Cheney" <bio_dudeNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns953B62AF1638BbiodudeNOSPAMhotmail@130.133.1.4:

(7) Iraq hypocrisy

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in
nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem
coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

The poor pathetic left. Still stuck in a pre-9/11 world.

That doesn't explain Iraq. I'll give him credit for Afganistan
but Iraq constitutes a flip/flop of major proportions.
Joe
.

User: "Sparky"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	03 Aug 2004 01:53:43 AM

Bill Levinson wrote:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:4MXOc.21705$iK.5794@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:XdUOc.21490 $iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

No Libertarian could support Bush unless they were really a republican
ashamed to admit it. Which, in fact, most "libertarians" are.

That is not true. We are in a Prisoners' Dilemma in which we have to
vote for Republicans to keep left-wing Democrats out. My choices seem to
be as follows:

(1) Vote Libertarian, in which case someone like Gore or Kerry wins and
enacts statist policies that are totally unacceptable to Libertarians.

(2) Vote Republican, in which case someone like Bush wins and enacts
only a few statist policies that are unacceptable to Libertarians while
repealing other policies (e.g. 1994 Lautenberg Assault Weapon ban,
Clinton's signature of the Kyoto Treaty, signature of a UN "small arms
treaty") that are unacceptable to Libertarians.

What would be great is a system in which you vote for your first,
second, and third choices. If your first choice craps out (eliminated
due to finishing last among the first choices), your second choice vote
goes to your second choice. Unfortunately, that means the Greens and the
like also would get more votes but that is democracy.

Bush's shameful budgets first and foremost would be the end of him for
a libertarian.

I do not care for Bush's budget but do you think Kerry, the biggest
liberal in the Senate, would be better?

Christ yes!

Then there's the corporate welfare handouts. Then there is the Patriot
Act.

Which of our civil rights has the Patriot Act really affected? Law
enforcement still cannot search us or our homes without a warrant or
probable cause.

Then there is the misuse of the military in Iraq. Christ, you once
listed 6 "strikes" against Kerry (3 of which actually had nothing to
do with him at all) yet you claim to a Libertarian supporting Bush?
What a crock. Now we all have proof you are a bald-faced liar.

BTW, have you ever actually scored Bush against your little chart? Not
to mention that the chart itself is so extreme. But that might explain
why you support Bush.

BTW2, a quick google search for you as author and the word "Badnarik"
turns up exactly one post - a reply to me in which you say "I would
mind seeing win!"

I said I would NOT mind seeing him win.

Nice to see you campaigning so hard for "your boy." Replace "Badnarik"
with "Browne" (as in Harry Browne, last LP candidate for president)
and you get two posts: one from *after* the 2000 election and one from
just before in which you say "Browne (whom I like)". Yes, we all
believe you are a Libertarian.

Pardon me, when were you appointed to speak on behalf of libertarians? I
missed that memo.
.

User: "Dave Cook"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	03 Aug 2004 06:51:56 AM

Sparky <nemo@moon.sun.edu> wrote in message news:<XDGPc.4012$vu2.1848032@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

Bill Levinson wrote:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:4MXOc.21705$iK.5794@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

Bill Levinson <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in
news:XdUOc.21490 $iK.7777@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

***** "Go F%*& Yourself" Cheney wrote:

You know - the more the republicans tear Kerry apart, and the more I
learn about Kerry while researching republican lies, the more I feel
like I might actually consider voting for Kerry.

No REAL Libertarian could possibly vote for a left-winger like Kerry.

From the man who doesn't even know what a Libertarian is.

I am one. http://www.stentorian.com/spectrum.html

No Libertarian could support Bush unless they were really a republican
ashamed to admit it. Which, in fact, most "libertarians" are.

That is not true. We are in a Prisoners' Dilemma in which we have to
vote for Republicans to keep left-wing Democrats out. My choices seem to
be as follows:

(1) Vote Libertarian, in which case someone like Gore or Kerry wins and
enacts statist policies that are totally unacceptable to Libertarians.

(2) Vote Republican, in which case someone like Bush wins and enacts
only a few statist policies that are unacceptable to Libertarians while
repealing other policies (e.g. 1994 Lautenberg Assault Weapon ban,
Clinton's signature of the Kyoto Treaty, signature of a UN "small arms
treaty") that are unacceptable to Libertarians.

What would be great is a system in which you vote for your first,
second, and third choices. If your first choice craps out (eliminated
due to finishing last among the first choices), your second choice vote
goes to your second choice. Unfortunately, that means the Greens and the
like also would get more votes but that is democracy.

Bush's shameful budgets first and foremost would be the end of him for
a libertarian.

I do not care for Bush's budget but do you think Kerry, the biggest
liberal in the Senate, would be better?

Christ yes!

Then you are a Democrat, pretending to be a libertarian, not really
one. Kerry threatens our freedoms. If elected, Kerry will be the third
richest president in history. He doesn't care a whit about common
people, but he wants the opportunity to build his fortune further. He
doesn't want people to have guns, because that might hamper him in the
future. Kerry doesn't care about African Americans and Mexican
Americans. He has their vote, and they are a convenient stepping
stone. There is nothing in his history in the Senate or his admitted
lying about Vietnam that recommends him or shows that he is going to
be an acceptable president. Is he going to change the way he operated
in the Senate? Kerry was on Senate Select Intelligence Committee For 8
years (1993-2000).While On Committee, Kerry Missed 38 Of 49
Intelligence Committee Hearings.During John Kerry's eight years of
service on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, there were
49 open, public hearings. Of these 49, John Kerry attended just 11
(22.4%). Among the most notable of those he missed is the June 8,
2000,hearing on the report of the National Commission on Terrorism,
which warned about the terrorist threat we now face and recommended
numerous steps to address that threat (few of which were adopted prior
to 9/11/01). Guys, this is what you would be voting for. He is just
plain irresponsible. Kerry is a slacker of the worst kind, and you
want someone to defend this country when he couldn't be bothered
coming to the most important meetings in the past? He missed 80% of
the Senate votes this year, and his way of shirking duty that bothers
me.

Then there's the corporate welfare handouts. Then there is the Patriot
Act.

Which of our civil rights has the Patriot Act really affected? Law
enforcement still cannot search us or our homes without a warrant or
probable cause.

Then there is the misuse of the military in Iraq. Christ, you once
listed 6 "strikes" against Kerry (3 of which actually had nothing to
do with him at all) yet you claim to a Libertarian supporting Bush?
What a crock. Now we all have proof you are a bald-faced liar.

BTW, have you ever actually scored Bush against your little chart? Not
to mention that the chart itself is so extreme. But that might explain
why you support Bush.

BTW2, a quick google search for you as author and the word "Badnarik"
turns up exactly one post - a reply to me in which you say "I would
mind seeing win!"

I said I would NOT mind seeing him win.

Nice to see you campaigning so hard for "your boy." Replace "Badnarik"
with "Browne" (as in Harry Browne, last LP candidate for president)
and you get two posts: one from *after* the 2000 election and one from
just before in which you say "Browne (whom I like)". Yes, we all
believe you are a Libertarian.

Pardon me, when were you appointed to speak on behalf of libertarians? I
missed that memo.

User: "Michael Ejercito"
Title: Re: John Kerry Sweating Like an Atheist on Judgement Day	01 Aug 2004 11:42:19 AM

Joe Blow <joeblow@volcanomail.com> wrote in message news:<yp6dnVx_6ZMxW5bcRVn-jg@comcast.com>...

Michael Ejercito wrote:

"ouroboros rex" <c-bee1@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<cee6m4$462$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:u_vOc.2864$Jp6.1671@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Adam Warlock wrote:

"Bill Levinson" <wlevinson@NOSPAM.stentorian.com> wrote in message
news:h3vOc.2820$Jp6.727@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...

Gactimus wrote:

Did anybody watch John Kerry's reinvention? Anyways that man is

sweating

like he's running a marathon or got caught in a lie.

The latter would explain it.

http://w