Follow-ups to: alt.politics

Stuart Grey wrote:
wrote:
...
No, I simply though you were equating Kerry's opposition to
US policy with being pro-communist.

Your admission that you thought simply and failed to think logically is
noted.

Actually, you are lying on both counts.

....

Some people opposed to FDRs policy in the North Atlantic
were openly pronazi. Is that evidence you are pronazi?

You have made yet another logical failure. This one is called tu quequo.
It is also irrlevant.

Precisely my point. Your 'evidence is as also irrelevent to the
conclusion you advocate, as mine is to the conclusion I chose to
not advocate.

....
They went to Paris and met with the diplomats there. No one but
they, and most certainly not you, know what they discussed.

1) Going to talk to the enemy was either a violation of the UCMJ (a
capital offense) or the USC (a felony).

You fail to cite any relevent statutes under either.

I also note that you have thus far declined to address my other
challenges, jsut like every other liar who claims Burkett proved
WSI witnesses were nto whom they claimed to be.

--

FF