"Michael Bryant" wrote in message
...
From the Drudge page:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...ryID=507317 1


I'm guessing theres an agenda with these MP's.

From: "MnMikew"

From the Drudge page:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...ryID=507317 1


I'm guessing theres an agenda with these MP's.

Fer sure. They're probably French spies, right? No, no. Let me guess. They're
publicity hounds that won't other folks to harrass their families, right?

I believe them. What do you want to bet that GW Bush does, 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: "MnMikew"

From the Drudge page:


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...ryID=507317 1


I'm guessing theres an agenda with these MP's.

Fer sure. They're probably French spies, right? No, no. Let me guess.
They're
publicity hounds that won't other folks to harrass their families, right?

No, John Kerry wannabes.

From: "MnMikew"

Fer sure. They're probably French spies, right? No, no. Let me guess.
They're
publicity hounds that won't other folks to harrass their families, right?

No, John Kerry wannabes.

Makes about as much sense as them being spies, right? Weren't you just chewing
me out about accusing Steve Lare without evidence.

Does due process work to only protect those espousing conservatism?


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: "MnMikew"

Fer sure. They're probably French spies, right? No, no. Let me guess.
They're
publicity hounds that won't other folks to harrass their families,
right?

No, John Kerry wannabes.

Makes about as much sense as them being spies, right? Weren't you just
chewing
me out about accusing Steve Lare without evidence.

Does due process work to only protect those espousing conservatism?

And you have proof their telling the truth and not pushing an agenda?

From: "MnMikew"

Makes about as much sense as them being spies, right? Weren't you just
chewing
me out about accusing Steve Lare without evidence.

Does due process work to only protect those espousing conservatism?

And you have proof their telling the truth and not pushing an agenda?


See the contradiction?

You say I need proof before accusing Steve, but then you can accuse soldiers
having agendas and it's my responsibility to provide evidence they don't have
an agenda. You seem to basing the burden of proof soley upon your own biases.


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: "MnMikew"

Makes about as much sense as them being spies, right? Weren't you just
chewing
me out about accusing Steve Lare without evidence.

Does due process work to only protect those espousing conservatism?

And you have proof their telling the truth and not pushing an agenda?


See the contradiction?

You say I need proof before accusing Steve, but then you can accuse
soldiers
having agendas and it's my responsibility to provide evidence they don't
have
an agenda. You seem to basing the burden of proof soley upon your own
biases.

Are you not basing you accusation of Steve on your own biases?

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

Makes about as much sense as them being spies, right? Weren't you
just
chewing
me out about accusing Steve Lare without evidence.

Does due process work to only protect those espousing
conservatism?

And you have proof their telling the truth and not pushing an
agenda?


See the contradiction?

You say I need proof before accusing Steve, but then you can accuse
soldiers
having agendas and it's my responsibility to provide evidence they
don't have
an agenda. You seem to basing the burden of proof soley upon your
own biases.


I believe them and I think it's a serious problem for the "war
effort." However, it says very little to nothing about a) the U.S.
b) the vast, vast majority of the troops, and c) whether we "belong"
there.

The basic problem is that those who oppose the war (such as
yourself)--and who, coincidentally never had 1% as much to say about
either Saddam Hussein's atrocities or about charred bodies being hung
and dragged through Fallujah--seem to feel that this has something to
do with the decision to go to war.

You like seeing Bush look bad, and for some perverse reason think that
events like this--totally outside of his domain--make him look bad.
That's why you come off looking like cheerleaders for each new
revelation. And then it's not Bush who looks bad.