OT- Support T.W.A.T
 

http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/****.jpg

--
73 Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant
never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare
to die.

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

RIGHT !
- Anything Less Than Complete Support Of Our Commander In Chief Is Treason !!!

Subject: OT- Support T.W.A.T
From: "Brian Hill"
Date: 4/15/2004 8:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id:



http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/****.jpg

--
73 Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There he goes. One of God's own prototypes. Some kind of high powered mutant
never even considered for mass production. Too weird to live, and too rare
to die.

Brian's Radio Universe
http://webpages.charter.net/brianehill/

"Chandler7600" wrote in message
...

RIGHT !
- Anything Less Than Complete Support Of Our Commander In Chief Is Treason
!!!

Sorry, wrong. Treason is a pretty narrow concept actually. If what you
said were true, then ours would not be a country worth fighting for. Take a
look at the Constitution.. that very first Amendmant is a real eye-opener.
We not only have a right to disagree or not support our
"Commander-in-Chief", we have the right to rid ourselves of him in the next
election, if we so desire. You must be thinking of either:

1) Some Communist or Fascist dictatorship or

2) UCMJ regulations which state that no servicemember may speak ill of any
superior officer, which includes the "Commander-in-Chief" Even this is not
treason, however, and generally results in a less-than-honorable discharge.

Exactly right, Brenda Ann.

Treason would be something more along the lines of allowing the Communist
Chinese to have advanced missle technology in return for hefty campaign
contributions.

-- Stinger

"Brenda Ann Dyer" wrote in message
...

"Chandler7600" wrote in message
...

RIGHT !
- Anything Less Than Complete Support Of Our Commander In Chief Is
Treason
!!!

Sorry, wrong. Treason is a pretty narrow concept actually. If what you
said were true, then ours would not be a country worth fighting for. Take
a
look at the Constitution.. that very first Amendmant is a real eye-opener.
We not only have a right to disagree or not support our
"Commander-in-Chief", we have the right to rid ourselves of him in the
next
election, if we so desire. You must be thinking of either:

1) Some Communist or Fascist dictatorship or

2) UCMJ regulations which state that no servicemember may speak ill of any
superior officer, which includes the "Commander-in-Chief" Even this is not
treason, however, and generally results in a less-than-honorable
discharge.

From: "Stinger"

Treason would be something more along the lines of allowing the Communist
Chinese to have advanced missle technology in return for hefty campaign
contributions.

Then why didn't the Republicans try to impeach Clinton for that? Were they in
on the conspiracy? And hasn't GW Bush actually increased high-level exchanges
between the US and China militaries even after they captured our spy plane?
Isn't Cheney over in China attempting to enlist their services at this moment?
Do you think GW Bush was bought out, too?




Michael Bryant, WA4009SWL
Louisville, KY
R75, S800, RX320, SW77, ICF2010K,
DX398, 7600G, 6800W, RF2200, 7600A
GE SRll, Pro-2006, Pro-2010, Pro-76
(remove "nojunk" to reply)

"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From: "Stinger"

Treason would be something more along the lines of allowing the Communist
Chinese to have advanced missle technology in return for hefty campaign
contributions.

Then why didn't the Republicans try to impeach Clinton for that? Were they
in
on the conspiracy? And hasn't GW Bush actually increased high-level
exchanges
between the US and China militaries even after they captured our spy
plane?
Isn't Cheney over in China attempting to enlist their services at this
moment?
Do you think GW Bush was bought out, too?


Actually, unlike the missile technology the Clintonistas gave the ChiComs, I
haven't seen any evidence the Bush administration has done any of the things
I see you accusing them of.

-- Stinger

"Stinger" wrote in message
.. .

Actually, unlike the missile technology the Clintonistas gave the ChiComs,
I
haven't seen any evidence the Bush administration has done any of the
things
I see you accusing them of.



I couldn't understand Clinton giving China missile technology, either, until
I realized that he could not have done so without the permission of the
Chiefs of Staff, etc. What I'm guessing here (and mind you, this is only a
guess).. is that China, like Russia, is no longer considered an enemy. The
Cold War ended on Reagan's watch.. perhaps all the powers that be figured
there was no reason not to give them the technology..

For a very long time, it was illegal to sell computer technology to Russia..
now they have all the latest stuff, right up to Windows XP.. (have seen it
in Russian versions here.. there is a large Russian population in S.
Korea)..

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:28:19 +0900, "Brenda Ann Dyer"
wrote:


"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, unlike the missile technology the Clintonistas gave the ChiComs,
I
haven't seen any evidence the Bush administration has done any of the
things
I see you accusing them of.



I couldn't understand Clinton giving China missile technology, either, until
I realized that he could not have done so without the permission of the
Chiefs of Staff, etc. What I'm guessing here (and mind you, this is only a
guess).. is that China, like Russia, is no longer considered an enemy. The
Cold War ended on Reagan's watch.. perhaps all the powers that be figured
there was no reason not to give them the technology..

For a very long time, it was illegal to sell computer technology to Russia..
now they have all the latest stuff, right up to Windows XP.. (have seen it
in Russian versions here.. there is a large Russian population in S.
Korea)..


Okay, we gave them Windows XP ......... but did we give them the
service patches? If not, that could be considered "State Sponsored
Terrorism" 8-}

"Howard" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:28:19 +0900, "Brenda Ann Dyer"
wrote:


"Stinger" wrote in message
. ..

Actually, unlike the missile technology the Clintonistas gave the
ChiComs,
I
haven't seen any evidence the Bush administration has done any of the
things
I see you accusing them of.



I couldn't understand Clinton giving China missile technology, either,
until
I realized that he could not have done so without the permission of the
Chiefs of Staff, etc. What I'm guessing here (and mind you, this is only
a
guess).. is that China, like Russia, is no longer considered an enemy.
The
Cold War ended on Reagan's watch.. perhaps all the powers that be figured
there was no reason not to give them the technology..

For a very long time, it was illegal to sell computer technology to
Russia..
now they have all the latest stuff, right up to Windows XP.. (have seen
it
in Russian versions here.. there is a large Russian population in S.
Korea)..


Okay, we gave them Windows XP ......... but did we give them the
service patches? If not, that could be considered "State Sponsored
Terrorism" 8-}

Actually.. wouldn't it be Mr. Bill involved in espionage against the
Russians? :P Come to think of it, we should have given all our enemies XP..
we could keep all our intelligence people at home and have the hackers teach
them the tricks of the trade..