Limbaugh is absolutely absurd

OK Bush is a coward if you say so. Doesn't matter.. Kerry is a decorated war hero but,


he is still a traitor.


What you seem to have trouble understanding, intentionally I might add, is that being a traitor is not the same as being a coward.

So call Bush a coward if you wish along with all draft dodgers. I do not believe Kerry is a coward, but he is most certainly a traitor.

 

Exactly!

 

Joseph, Judas was a betrayer from the BEGINNING. Jesus knew that. Knowing where Jesus was does not make him a disciple. I know you are in Arkansas and I sure ain't your disciple.

"So call Bush a coward if you wish along with all draft dodgers. I do not believe Kerry is a coward, but he is most certainly a traitor."
Nope. Just Bush is a coward. He didn't even have the guts to NOT join but what did he do? He went to the Guard knowing full well he'd stay in his cushy little cot.

Kerry a traitor? Post proof. He fought for the U.S. in a war did he not? Or do you have subjective interpretations for the word traitor which you apply to anyone you don't like?

 

By the way, on the original topic of this thread, the replacement of the NAACP by IBE, the IBE drew 300,000 people this year to their events over a 10-day period. Good-bye, NAACP!

 

Way to go cmg for being the one to get the thread back on topic.

edited as I'm not a troll.

 

That's good of you, since you're the one who first mentioned Kerry.

 

http://www.stolenhonor.com/documentary/program-excerpts.asp

 

I have plenty of solid evidence but I don't want to hijack this thread any more than you already have, so I'll just answer your question and drop the subject.


"Or do you have subjective interpretations for the word traitor which you apply to anyone you don't like?"


No. Kerry and Hanoi Jane are the only two traitors from the 20th century I can think of that have not been brought to justice.

 

That's good of you, since you're the one who first mentioned Kerry. </font>[/QUOTE]If that is the case, it could have been ignored. But it wasn't. You should have been ignored too...but I just can't help myself from responding to warmongers who label people traitors because they "don't like them".

 

I have plenty of solid evidence but I don't want to hijack this thread any more than you already have, so I'll just answer your question and drop the subject.


"Or do you have subjective interpretations for the word traitor which you apply to anyone you don't like?"


No. Kerry and Hanoi Jane are the only two traitors from the 20th century I can think of that have not been brought to justice. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok buddy...

if they are traitors that have not been to brought to justice what does that say about your justice system?

 

Joseph, I don't want a link. Post the info here. I will bet it is a biased link with no actual "proof". If it is "proof" then Kerry should have been brought to justice. (see above post regarding THAT)

 

The proof is in the link. If you consider the testimony of POW's of the Vietnam war to be biased, then I am not sure what is going to do it for you. Further, they also show footage of the WSI where it is clear that they are making up lies to repeat about the American Soldiers. Kerry is a traitor, and by his own words, a war criminal, and should be put on trial for his crimes against humanity and against his own nation.

Joseph Botwinick

 

You can't even prove Rove broke a law let alone committed treason.

 

I see what you mean.


The difference is that we will eventually find out about Rove and , if he broke the law, action will be taken.. He will be fired or prosecuted or both.

We have already found out that Kerry broke the law on more than one occasion as well as there being a strong possibility that he is guilty of treason. Nothing has been done nor will it be.

If Rove gets the same pass that Kerry did, here's guessing you won't be too happy about it.

 

From ASLANSPAL:

To ASLANSPAL:
It is impossible to avoid labels. If you hold particular polical veiwpoints, then you categorize yourself.

It has been my experience that liberals and progressives tend to avoid being labelled as such while conservatives such as myself embrace our label and promote it because we believe many of the tenets of conservatism to be true. Progressives are often elitists who try to stay "above the fray" because of their superior intellect. They believe that they are able to make an independent decision while the rest of us are unable to think for ourselves - we are just poor plebes, doomed and befuddled at every turn and just follow the party line because of our ignorance.

When you make a liberal or democrat argument - then that is what you are - at least on that particular topic. Remember that "independent" is also a label. Independents are particularly characterized by the habit of giving in to pressure. They struggle to stand fast in the face of opposition. Independents are always trying to side with the majority.

I especially ask you to check the facts of the Rove case before jumping to conclusions.

Sincerely, Libero

 

Well, I don't think that's bunk - I believe that pretty well sums it up!