In article , (Steve
Robeson K4CAP) writes:

Subject: BPL - UPLC -Repeat the lie three times and claim it for truth
From: "John Anderson"
Date: 6/19/2004 7:52 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id: qd5Bc.119983$3x.87399@attbi_s54


"N2EY" wrote in message
...

I think/hope what will really kill BPL is economics. It simply won't be
able to compete with DSL, cable and other technologies.

73 de Jim, N2EY

Bush appointed Powell, lets boot Bush, replace him with anyone who will work
for the people, not the rich corporations!

And replace him with who? John Kerry?

Why not?

A guy who sat side-by-side with
this Nation's disgrace, Jane "Hanoi" Fonda...?!?!

When did John Kerry sit side-by-side with Hanoi Jane?

And if such proximity disqualifies someone, how about Donald Rumsfeld shaking
hands with, and warmly greeting, Saddam Hussein? How about the blind eye the
Reagan Administration turned to SH's chemical warfare against the Kurds?

Both of whom "support the troops" by making public statements that give
aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in conflict with
them...?!?!

Hanoi Jane's treasonous actions (not just words) are well documented (see
www.snopes.com).

What actions of John Kerry do you refer to? He's a decorated veteran who served
in Vietnam, then came back to the USA and opposed that war.

Was he wrong to follow his conscience in doing so? Is anyone who speaks out
against a war - any war - automatically wrong?

Consider this, Steve: During WW2, FDR (a Democrat) ran for reelection in 1944,
in the middle of the biggest armed conflict the world has ever seen - or
hopefully ever will see. Yet the Republicans nominated someone to run against
him. Was that giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's foes WHILE we are in
conflict with them...?!?!"

Or how about when Richard Nixon (a Republican) ran for reelection in 1972,
during the very war Mr. Kerry fought in. Mr. Nixon had won in 1968, in part on
a platform that involved a "secret plan to end the war" - which was still going
on 4 years later. The Democrats nominated George McGovern to run against him.
Were either the 1968 or1972 campaigns giving "aid and comfort to this Nation's
foes WHILE we are in conflict with them...?!?!"

George Bush is not the most eloquent speaker and like any other Human
Being, doesn't always get things right...But he's a man of TRUE moral
conviction and honesty.

How do you know?

He told us that SH had weapons of mass destruction. He told us that there were
solid links between the 9-11 terrorism organizations and SH's regime. Yet up to
now *no* credible evidence has been provided to back up those claims - in fact,
just the opposite has surfaced.

This doesn't mean Mr. Bush is dishonest. He may have just been mistaken or
misled.

Replacing him with a creep like Kerry would be a
travesty and would send the wrong message to the World.

What message do you wish to send? That the USA will back its leaders no matter
what? That the supply of oil is so important that we will look the other way
while our suppliers do almost anything?

This country got rid of one lying, deceiving creep and narrowly avoided
electing another.

There's no shortage of those - on either side of the aisle.

I'm not saying Mr. K is any better or worse than Mr. B. What I *am* saying is
that blind acceptance of any leader's pronouncements leads to trouble. And that
condemning someone because of who they allegedly sat next to 30 years ago would
lead to a lot of people being condemned...

73 de Jim, N2EY