posted September 19, 2004 11:28 AM            

John Edwards is a lightweight who is entirely out of his league. The more people hear Edwards speak, the more apparent it becomes he is totally unqualified to hold any office in government. John Edwards is a Senator who would not be reelected to his Senate seat in North Carolina. He would lose in his home state, as the Kerry/Edwards ticket is losing in North Carolina to Bush/Cheney.

So, Kerry and Edwards can give aid and comfort to our terrorist enemies by giving them the heart and will to fight on, kill as many Americans as possible and they will withdraw our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan when he is elected but Kerry/Edwards are not going to be elected, even if Kerry/Edwards are the President/Vice President choices of the various terrorists groups around the world, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

posted September 19, 2004 11:48 AM            

"Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them,or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

John Kerry vs. The 14th Amendment
Raymond S. Kraft
Monday, Sept. 13, 2004

In 1971, upon returning from four months service in Vietnam and while still a Naval officer, John Kerry testified openly, publicly, before Congress, that he and everyone else serving in Vietnam had committed atrocities, that they were all war criminals.

Kerry quickly became active and influential in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, organizing and leading anti-war protests. Kerry wrote a book, "The New Soldier," that set out his criticism of America's war against the malignancy of communism. John Kerry went to Paris where he conducted private, illegal, diplomacy with the North Vietnamese, and returned to advocate that America surrender to North Vietnam, and on our enemies' terms. He became an advocate for America's enemy.

The North Vietnamese seized on John Kerry's book and speeches and used them for psychological warfare, torture, against American POW's in Hanoi. Kerry's anti-war words and deeds helped turn America's military victory into a political defeat, and North Vietnam's military defeat into a political victory.
Kerry's actions were doubtless instrumental in prolonging the war, and adding to the number of Americans wounded in action, and to those killed in action, whose names are now engraved on the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, D.C. - The Wall.

This is not rumor, nor speculation, nor spin. Kerry did all these things openly, publicly, proudly, intentionally, willfully, and deliberately, in the full light of day and history.

He did these things with an obvious and express intention to impede America's war effort, and assist its enemy. It is common, public knowledge, and fully, indisputably documented. John Kerry, while an officer of the United States, knowingly, willfully, deliberately, intentionally gave aid and comfort to America's enemy in a time of war.

The Constitution of the United States, Article 14, Section 3 (also known as Amendment 14, Section 3) states in relevant part:

"No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military . . . who, having previously taken an oath . . . as an officer of the United States . . . to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof . . ."

When John Kerry became a Naval officer, he took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Afterward, upon his return from Viet Nam, he openly, publicly, and proudly, gave aid and comfort to America's enemies.

Having given aid and comfort to America's enemy, while a Naval officer of the United States, John Kerry is clearly and unequivocally disqualified, barred, by Article 14, Section 3, of the Constitution, from serving as a Senator or as President.

posted September 19, 2004 12:14 PM            

My problem with John Kerry is much more fundamental than not knowing what Kerry intends.

I already know what he's done, committed treason against the United States.

I also have his 20 year Senate record to consider, a record of voting against every single front line weapons system in the US arsenal, weapons systems across the spectrum of our military services that are inarguably the best in the world.

At every opportunity, John Kerry has voted to weaken the US militarily and leave us at a disadvantage.

There is also the fact that Kerry voted over and over again in the 1990's to devastate the CIA budget. This at a time when America was being attacked both here and abroad. This was the very time we needed the best intelligence we could produce to (1) determine who the hell was attacking us and (2) to get insight into their future plans to prevent future attacks and (3) to penetrate their groups and destroy them.

posted September 19, 2004 12:37 PM              

"The more people hear Edwards speak, the more apparent it becomes he is totally unqualified to hold any office in government"

Yeah... Well, to that I have to say:

The more people that hear Bush speak (with minds of thier own), it is clear he isn't qualified to pass a GED test. C'mon JW. How can a person of your intelligence honestly buy into his BS?

The people that are going to vote for Bush are doing so because he is using TERROR against them.

You're right, JW, some things never change. In the 1970s GWB was too much of a coward to face the call of duty for his country, and today, he is using that same cowardace (using terrorism as a means of election) today to pimp himself out to those who are extremely fearful.

As far as treason... well, JW, at least Kerry had the gonads to show up for duty. What can you say about your boy... OOhh.. right... he was too busy living up the rich life and partying it up to be bothered with some country he can't even pronounce the name of.

Hmm... there's a word I'm searching for for GWB, but just can't seem to think of it.

What's a word for a person who adopts his ememy's scare tactics to frighten their own people? What do you call a person who's whole running premise is FEAR of death and distruction.

I'll tell you what I call them... Terrorists.

I'd rather have a man capable of looking at the situation he's gotten himself into and acknowledging it was wrong (as no one has any bones about admitting now that Kerry's already set the ground work... Vietnam was WRONG). I'd rather have a man like that in charge of my country. Myself, and the rest of thinking America will be voting for ANYBODY BUT BUSH.

posted September 19, 2004 01:52 PM            

"After Richard Nixon won the presidency in 1968, he offered Kissinger the job of national security adviser. Together, the men conducted U.S. foreign policy from the White House, circumventing government bureaucracies and frequently Congress as well. Their main preoccupation was with the war in Vietnam. They pursued a strategy of "Vietnamization," opened secret peace negotiations with the North Vietnamese, but also increased the bombing of North Vietnam and widened the war into Cambodia. In addition, Nixon and Kissinger sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union and China, with the partial aim of getting their help in ending the Vietnam War. In late 1972, their efforts produced a fragile peace accord. Meanwhile, Nixon and Kissinger's strategy of improving the U.S. position in world affairs had produced successes such as an arms control agreement with Moscow and the spectacular "opening" to China."

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/kbank/profiles/kissinger/

Hmmm, so it looks like that John Kerry wasn't the only one that was a traitor either then. It's funny, everytime whenever the Demorcrats and the Republicans get together to do something, years later, the Republicans end up throughing back into the Demorcrat's face!

I see that your also using the 14th Admendment;Section 3 again JW, to prove your arguement, but if you going to do that, please by all means, write out the whole Section 3?

Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. {But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.}"

Don't you think that this is what got Kerry "off the hook" in the first place? Don't blame Kerry for this, blame Washington!

posted September 19, 2004 02:00 PM            

I'm anxiously awaiting the backlash.......

**puke**

posted September 19, 2004 04:22 PM            

Seems only the extreme left wing radical liberals are scared. The rest of us understand the common sense in going after and killing the terrorists before they kill more Americans.

Whatever could possess you to denigrate the intelligence of a man with an undergraduate degree from Yale and a Masters from the Harvard School of Business, LS. Your heroes in Hollywood, Michael Moore et al. are mostly college dropouts or just high school graduates. Even Kerry applied to Harvard and couldn't pass the entrance exam. Algore flunked out of Divinity School and dropped out of Vanderbilt Law School Hehehe, more empty rhetoric LS and it doesn't become you.

Now, the truth about John Kerry and how he came to be in Vietnam.

Kerry signed up for the Naval Reserve.....the Navy equivalent of the Air National Guard and he signed up because he feared being drafted into the military when he graduated from Yale. His unit was activated, so Kerry applied for a delay of a year before going on active duty. His application was denied and Kerry served on a ship stationed off Vietnam. At the time Kerry applied for Swiftboat duty, swift boats were not the hazardous duty they later became. Swiftboat activity was confined to patrolling the waters off the shores of Vietnam. At some point, a decision was made to use Swiftboats on river patrols in Vietnam and that's where Kerry found himself after he completed his training...training by the way that took him off the ship off the shores of Vietnam and away from danger.

Kerry had a 6 year military obligation as a member of the Naval Reserve....same as Bush in the Air National Guard. The service was equivalent, except that Kerry's unit was activated and Bush's unit was not.

Most people think Kerry enlisted in the Navy. Kerry didn't, he signed up for the Naval Reserve and his unit was activated. If Kerrry had enlisted in the Navy, he would not have had a 6 year military obligation.

The rest of your diatribe against Bush is hogwash. Not one of your allegations has any merit....not by the factual records which show Bush showed up and completed his service with more than twice the required points needed to fulfill his obligation. The records also indicate he applied for and received a transfer to the Alabama Air National Guard and that record shows he was paid for duty there....which means he did show up....even if he wasn't flying. If Bush had not shown up for training in Alabama, there would have been no attendance records on which to pay him for the periods he received pay. Further, there is a record of a dental appointment on the base in Alabama so it is established beyond doubt that Bush was where he was supposed to be, in Alabama, and doing what he was supposed to be doing.

It's not noteworthy that Bush wasn't flying in Alabama. First, there was a glut of qualified pilots, many having returned from active duty in Vietnam and secondly because the Alabama Air Guard flew a different plane than Bush was trained on and certified to fly and third, there weren't enough aircraft for all the pilots on that base to train on anyway. A lot of pilots were assigned to desk jobs just for that reason...so they could complete their military obligation.

Now LS, I think it's time you drop your mask of impartiality and declare you are and always have been a Kerry supporter....in spite of your previous statements because your comments could have come straight from the Kerry campaign, the Democrat National Committee or MoveOn.org.

The fact is, Kerry is a traitor. That fact is established in the United States Constitution with the definition of treason. Facts LS, not empty political rhetoric....like your comments.

posted September 19, 2004 04:53 PM              

"war" crimes were being committed much earlier than 1971 when kerry spoke.....

there was tiger force in 1967(afp article) http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Pentagon_refuses_102003.htm

then in 1968 ,Lt. William Calley led a massacre of Vietnamese civilians (including small children) at My Lai http://www.vietnam-war.info/figures/william_calley.php

On March 17 1969, Nixon launched a massive secret bombing campaign against bases in Cambodia

Among declassified documents published this week by the independent National Security Archive is a memo to national security advisor Henry A. Kissinger from his assistant, Gen. Alexander M. Haig Jr. It described plans to signal "U.S. intent to escalate military operations in Vietnam in the face of continued enemy intransigence in Paris." http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2002/Nixon-Secret-Nuclear-Alert26dec02.htm

In 1970, Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy NLF sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. This action prompted even more protests on American college campuses. Several students were shot to death by National Guard troops during demonstrations at Kent State.

civilian casualties from us bombing in cambodia are estimated at 600,000 (SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND!!!!!)
more bombs were dropped and almost as many u.s. soldiers were killed under nixon than in the previous 3 administrations(and that includes his own 8 year stint as vp to eisenhower lol)

then in 1971 kerry made his statements to the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."

. White House Press Secretary Ron Ziegler on November 30, 1972 told the press that there would be no more public announcements concerning American troop withdrawals from Vietnam due to the fact that troop levels were then down to 27,000. The US halted heavy bombing of North Vietnam on December 30, 1972.

so kerry prolonged the "war" did he?........lol

and you still havnt commented on this article......
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/weapons.asp

posted September 20, 2004 12:25 PM            

John Kerry and his merry bands of Marxist stooges, cowards, general malcontents and America haters, including a wholly corrupt American Press corps managed to turn the war into a victory for the Communist North Vietnamese even if the Communists did lose every major battle and most of the smaller battles too.

Your comments are full of rhetoric Petron but little substance. Some "estimates" but few facts.

Bringing up the actions of William Calley as the "rule" of American military conduct in Vietnam rather than the "exception" is similar to what Kerry said when he lied in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Those so called soldiers he quoted were later found to have been no where near Vietnam during the war, for the most part. It's interesting to note that a person connected to Kerry, Al Hubbard is one of those liars who put the stamp of truth on Kerry's lies when he too said he committed atrocities in Vietnam. Al Hubbard was never in Vietnam but he was very near Kerry, part of Kerry's Winter Soldiers group. Liars one and all. Incidentially, Kerry and Hubbard, among others once had a meeting to vote on whether or not to assassinate several US Senators and Kerry was there.

To the extent the people of a communist nation endorse the actions of their communist leaders by not grabbing them off the streets and hanging them from the tallest flagpole in their capitol, to the extent they participate in the subjugation of the people of a neighboring country to spread their communist poison there too, then yes, the people of North Vietnam were my enemies, even if they were and are John Kerry's friends.

That's the problem with John Kerry, all his foreign friends and a good number of his domestic friends and supporters are enemies of America, opposed to America, America's actions, system of government, economic system and America's military. I notice you quote one such group...Veterans for Peace. Or should on say, Veterans for Surrender?

I read everything you posted Petron and what was on the links you posted as well.

600,000 dead in Cambodia as a result of Nixon's secret bombing campaign? You left a little something out Petron but first let's deal with that number. Specifically Petron, what cities in Cambodia did Nixon direct the Air Force to bomb? Had to be cities, now didn't it Petron? 600,000 dead in Cambodia from American bombing couldn't have occurred unless major cities were bombed. You realize don't you Petron that 600,000 dead is more than the total killed in Hiroshima, Japan when the atomic bomb was dropped, more than the number killed in say Hamburg, Germany when the allies were bombing around the clock in WWII. Another fraud Petron but that's the coin of the realm for the leftists, lies and fraud.

Cambodia was bombed because the North Vietnamese communists were illegally using Cambodia as a staging area by establishing bases within Cambodia. Bases and staging areas used by the Communists to launch attacks against American and South Vietnamese forces in the South. Nixon bombed the hell out of those illegal North Vietnamese bases and staging areas. I only wish Nixon had instead bombed the hell out of Hanoi and every major city in North Vietnam. But that was politically impossible given that the Communist North Vietnamese had their friends in the American Press and in the halls of Congress too.

There is no question, in that it's a matter on the public record that American prisoners of war had John Kerry's words condemning American military forces as war criminals read to them by their communist jailers, in an attempt to break them and force them to sign papers that they too were war criminals. It's also on the public record that Jane Fonda manned a North Vietnam anti aircraft gun and made speeches broadcast into South Vietnam urging American military forces to throw down their weapons and surrender to the Communists.

Of course John Kerry voted against every major weapons system in our arsenal Petron. He voted against the Military Appropriations Budgets and also against the General Budgets within which are the authorizations for spending money on military hardware...among other things. That's the way it works Petron. Worse, Kerry voted to slash the intelligence budgets...at a time when America was under attack at home and abroad by terrorist.

John Kerry's actions in the wind down of the Vietnam war brand him a traitor, in that as a Naval Reserve officer, he committed treason against the United States by giving aid and comfort to America's enemy.

Nothing has changed over time Petron. Kerry's every action since he became a Senator has been directed against the best interests of the United States.

Now Petron, if you can find one thing on the record, in any bill that Senator Kerry has authored and had passed, that would recommend Kerry to the American voting public as being a competent Commander in Chief of American military forces, please post it here....with proper attribution so we can all see it. Ditto for any bill Senator Kerry has authored which became law that tends to show Senator Kerry has any competence in the field of Domestic Policy, including an economic policy for America. I'm not talking about talk here petron, so leave off all of Kerry's words of rhetoric of today. I'm talking about what Kerry has actually done, on the record in his 20 years as a United States Senator.

posted September 20, 2004 12:43 PM            

Sure enough, on the same day Lewinsky testified for the first time before a grand jury (at 9 a.m.) Clinton appeared at a Rose Garden ceremony (at 10 a.m.) sporting the gold and navy blue necktie she had given him. Of course the president denied he was sending her a signal – to lie? deny a cover-up? be faithful? – but to the public Monica’s claims had the ring of truth.

Given the subtlety, indeed archness, of this mode of communication, I’m beginning to suspect that John Kerry also is employing the necktie strategy in signaling America’s enemies that he is on their side.

Why else would the richest man in the Senate – a man whose pricey wardrobe is laid out for him daily by his personal valet – wear only one necktie during almost all of his public appearances? And that necktie – albeit not in a thin muslin or coarse cotton but probably woven from the finest silk – a replica in its pink and white pattern of the Arabs’ favorite headdress, the kefiyyah.

Kerry, after all, has a long – and, to my mind, ignominious – history of siding with those whose intent is to undermine and/or destroy America.

In the early 1970s, Kerry turned against his fellow Vietnam compatriots, testifying before Congress that they had committed war crimes and subsequently calling America’s efforts to stem the spread of communism in Southeast Asia "the biggest nothing in history. "

Then, in an unauthorized trip and while American soldiers were still being tortured in prison camps, he traveled to Paris to meet with North Vietnamese officials. Newspapers quoted him saying that there were "200,000 Vietnamese a year who are murdered by the United States of America" and featured him speaking in support of the Viet Cong and backing its Seven Point Plan, which advocated that "the U.S. Government … end its war of aggression in Vietnam."

Ultimately, the result of Kerry’s “peace” efforts were the fall of Saigon and the murder by Communists of an estimated two million Cambodians and tens of thousands of South Vietnamese. Another million South Vietnamese were imprisoned in "re-education camps" and hundreds of thousands died there, while an additional two million fled the country, many drowning in the attempt.

In the 1980s, after he was elected to the Senate, Kerry supported the military rule of the Soviet-backed Sandinistas in Nicaragua instead of embracing U.S. policy of backing the anti-Communist army, the Contras, which was fighting against them.

He coauthored an article proposing that U.S. forces be disarmed and then – again without government authorization – traveled with his ideologically left-wing soul mate, Sen. Tom Harkin, to Nicaragua to meet with the Marxist-Leninist Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, returning with a bogus "peace" proposal for the Contras to surrender.

According to then-Secretary of State George Schultz, “Those who assure us that these dire consequences are not in prospect [in Central America] are some of those who assured us of the same in Indochina before 1975. The litany of apology for communists, and condemnation for America and our friends, is beginning again.”

In the 1990s, Kerry voted against Gulf War I (Operation Desert Storm) to remove invading Iraqis from Kuwait. And throughout the decade, he consistently voted against major military, defense and intelligence funding, even opting to slash the intelligence budget after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

And in our new century – when Islamic terrorism inflicted its savagery on our country’s men and women on September 11, 2001 – Kerry the presidential candidate is still touting a major role in U.S. foreign policy of the corrupt and unfailingly ineffectual United Nations and a reliance on spineless "allies" like France.

Worse, he has continued – as he did in his post-Vietnam years – to demoralize and undermine America’s fighting forces by, among other egregious actions, voting against the urgent $87 billion supplemental funds to provide body armor, equipment, ammunition et al. to our troops in the field, and encouraging our enemies by calling our more than three dozen brave coalition partners “window dressing.”

Still, Kerry hopes that the unnamed “foreign leaders” he once said supported his candidacy will inspire Americans to vote him in.

And who are those leaders?

In addition to the recently elected Spanish appeaser, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero ("We're aligning ourselves with Kerry…”), the universally acknowledged madman Kim Jong-il of North Korea, the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America, they include leaders in the Arab world who are waiting breathlessly for a Kerry presidency and a return to his own and his party’s bedrock philosophy: Accommodate, appease and talk around a conference table until you’re blue in the face. The better, of course, for them to continue – unimpeded – to wreak chaos and instability around the world.

But Kerry is in a bind when it comes to showing his true colors during a presidential campaign. He can’t actually say that he is in favor of meeting with the very terrorists and their ilk who have sworn to annihilate America. Nor can he “reach out” to them in any obvious way.

So, it’s my guess that – except when he’s donning bunny ears at NASA or his slick windsurfing tights – Kerry’s kefiyyah-patterned tie may serve to tell the mullahs as well as the terrorists from Hezbollah and the Al Aqsa Brigade that, yes, I’m with you! When I’m president, we’ll all sit down and talk about your “grievances” and, you can trust me, I’ll only react to your onslaughts after you’ve attacked us and after I’ve gone to the U.N. and after our “allies” give me and my million advisers the green light.

If my kefiyyah necktie theory is not true, then why on earth would Kerry tell the Council on Foreign Relations in December that, if elected, he would abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for the "years of mistakes by the Bush administration"?

In an article in the March issue of Insight magazine, author Kenneth R. Timmerman described the meeting: "Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his ‘radically wrong' policy, and seek ‘cooperation and compromise` with friend and foe alike."

Timmerman cited a seven-page e-mail, "confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp," that was published by the Mehr news agency in Tehran and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading daily there, “the hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times." This "indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism."

Timmerman cited the dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who said Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush … that's why they want to see Kerry elected." Timmerman also noted the strong, condemnatory reaction of President Bush to Iranian parliamentary "elections" last February, adding that "The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States."

Timmerman quoted Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, who said: "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

Another critic, the chair of the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, said: "To the [Iranian] regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who … are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."

That’s right, the same Jimmy Carter – Kerry’s mentor – who single-handedly paved the way for the moth-eaten, America-loathing Ayatollah Khomeini to get on a plane at Orly airport in Paris, fly into Tehran, overthrow the America-supporting shah and thereby begin the entire process of global Islamic terrorism that is now in full bloom to the great peril, pain, suffering, loss of life and national fear of the American people!

The same Jimmy Carter who believes the accommodator Kerry is the right man to deal effectively with the nuclear threats that now loom from Iran and North Korea, to stem the tide of terrorists now invading Iraq from Syria, and to halt the genocide in the Sudan.

"As these dangers metastasize," said journalist and president of the Center for Security Policy, Frank Gaffney, voters are being asked to choose between President Bush and "… a Kerry candidacy whose solutions to most international problems seems to be appeasement."

Whether or not Kerry is sending an I’m-your-friend message to our enemies by wearing his kefiyyah-patterned necktie day in and day out will never be known. What is known – if there is any reliability to recent polls that show his candidacy dropping precipitously – is that the American voter has gotten his message loud and clear!

posted September 20, 2004 01:21 PM              

I like my truths short and sweet, wherever possible:

posted September 20, 2004 02:07 PM            

quote:

---

Hmmm... I find it "interesting" that the person accusing others of the game of rhetoric then goes on to make the longest posts, using the most words...?
I like my truths short and sweet, wherever possible:

It may be long before the law of love will be recognized in international
affairs. The machineries of government stand between and hide the hearts of
one people from those of another.
--Mahatma Ghandi

---

I notice paras that you didn't include anything in your comment but rhetoric, empty rhetoric at that.

Empty rhetoric is no substitute for facts paras. Do you have any facts to refute what's been said in what I posted?

Let's see paras, according to your standards of relating the length of written documents to the amount of rhetoric the document contains, one must conclude you believe the US Constitution is filled with rhetoric, or say, the UN Charter, UN Resolution 1441, The Declaration of Independence, et al.

Let me help you out here paras with a truth that's short and sweet.

By standards established by and in the Constitution of the United States, John Kerry is a traitor who committed treason against the United States.

posted September 20, 2004 02:19 PM            

quote:

---

I see that your also using the 14th Admendment;Section 3 again JW, to prove your arguement, but if you going to do that, please by all means, write out the whole Section 3?

Section 3. "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

{But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.}"

Don't you think that this is what got Kerry "off the hook" in the first place? Don't blame Kerry for this, blame Washington!

---

posted September 20, 2004 02:28 PM              

JWHOP LABELS GHANDI'S WORDS EMPTY RHETORIC; WORLD CONVINCED

posted September 20, 2004 02:42 PM            

Care to take a stab at that?

posted September 20, 2004 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

Just as soon as you show me that both houses of Congress voted by a 2/3 majority to remove Kerry's disability to hold office, I'll drop this issue and apologize, to this site and to John Kerry by personal letter to his campaign.

---

No, I don't really believe that JW, I think that even if George W. Bush shot his wife between the eyes with a Smith & Wesson, you would still just find an array of excuses for the man, with the help of Newsmax.com to back up your allegations!