- This topic has 1,260 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 15 years ago by
ucodegen.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 13, 2009 at 4:07 PM #469090October 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM #468282
briansd1
Guest[quote=sd_matt]Shades of grey. LMAO. Watching those two sides argue is like watching a cat fight the mirror. [/quote]
I concede that I’m being black and white at times… but all in good fun.;)
It’s fun to throw back at cons some of the same rhetoric they’ve been using. For a long time liberals lost the average public because they were too intellectually honest and too complex and convoluted in their rhetoric.
The cons should be turning the other cheek first. After all, isn’t that what the Bible says?
But then you have people like Bush who say strike first, think later.
I’m just a little confused.
[quote=sd_matt] then you make statements like the one about the Cons blaming Obama for starting wars. Yowzers!![/quote]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
Unfortunately for Obama, it’s a lose/lose for him no matter what he does in Iraq an AFPAK.
October 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM #468465Guest[quote=sd_matt]Shades of grey. LMAO. Watching those two sides argue is like watching a cat fight the mirror. [/quote]
I concede that I’m being black and white at times… but all in good fun.;)
It’s fun to throw back at cons some of the same rhetoric they’ve been using. For a long time liberals lost the average public because they were too intellectually honest and too complex and convoluted in their rhetoric.
The cons should be turning the other cheek first. After all, isn’t that what the Bible says?
But then you have people like Bush who say strike first, think later.
I’m just a little confused.
[quote=sd_matt] then you make statements like the one about the Cons blaming Obama for starting wars. Yowzers!![/quote]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
Unfortunately for Obama, it’s a lose/lose for him no matter what he does in Iraq an AFPAK.
October 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM #468825Guest[quote=sd_matt]Shades of grey. LMAO. Watching those two sides argue is like watching a cat fight the mirror. [/quote]
I concede that I’m being black and white at times… but all in good fun.;)
It’s fun to throw back at cons some of the same rhetoric they’ve been using. For a long time liberals lost the average public because they were too intellectually honest and too complex and convoluted in their rhetoric.
The cons should be turning the other cheek first. After all, isn’t that what the Bible says?
But then you have people like Bush who say strike first, think later.
I’m just a little confused.
[quote=sd_matt] then you make statements like the one about the Cons blaming Obama for starting wars. Yowzers!![/quote]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
Unfortunately for Obama, it’s a lose/lose for him no matter what he does in Iraq an AFPAK.
October 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM #468897Guest[quote=sd_matt]Shades of grey. LMAO. Watching those two sides argue is like watching a cat fight the mirror. [/quote]
I concede that I’m being black and white at times… but all in good fun.;)
It’s fun to throw back at cons some of the same rhetoric they’ve been using. For a long time liberals lost the average public because they were too intellectually honest and too complex and convoluted in their rhetoric.
The cons should be turning the other cheek first. After all, isn’t that what the Bible says?
But then you have people like Bush who say strike first, think later.
I’m just a little confused.
[quote=sd_matt] then you make statements like the one about the Cons blaming Obama for starting wars. Yowzers!![/quote]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
Unfortunately for Obama, it’s a lose/lose for him no matter what he does in Iraq an AFPAK.
October 13, 2009 at 4:17 PM #469111Guest[quote=sd_matt]Shades of grey. LMAO. Watching those two sides argue is like watching a cat fight the mirror. [/quote]
I concede that I’m being black and white at times… but all in good fun.;)
It’s fun to throw back at cons some of the same rhetoric they’ve been using. For a long time liberals lost the average public because they were too intellectually honest and too complex and convoluted in their rhetoric.
The cons should be turning the other cheek first. After all, isn’t that what the Bible says?
But then you have people like Bush who say strike first, think later.
I’m just a little confused.
[quote=sd_matt] then you make statements like the one about the Cons blaming Obama for starting wars. Yowzers!![/quote]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
Unfortunately for Obama, it’s a lose/lose for him no matter what he does in Iraq an AFPAK.
October 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM #468307Arraya
Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
“In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”
“And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade
Are you sure he didn’t study the fall of the soviet union? When he was a CIA asset we paid him to resist the half million soviet forces that were in Afghanistan. Which contributed to their collapse.
He also might have studied global finance where he could have learned about our debt problem and the petro-dollar and it’s importance on funding our military.
October 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM #468490Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
“In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”
“And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade
Are you sure he didn’t study the fall of the soviet union? When he was a CIA asset we paid him to resist the half million soviet forces that were in Afghanistan. Which contributed to their collapse.
He also might have studied global finance where he could have learned about our debt problem and the petro-dollar and it’s importance on funding our military.
October 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM #468850Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
“In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”
“And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade
Are you sure he didn’t study the fall of the soviet union? When he was a CIA asset we paid him to resist the half million soviet forces that were in Afghanistan. Which contributed to their collapse.
He also might have studied global finance where he could have learned about our debt problem and the petro-dollar and it’s importance on funding our military.
October 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM #468922Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
“In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”
“And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade
Are you sure he didn’t study the fall of the soviet union? When he was a CIA asset we paid him to resist the half million soviet forces that were in Afghanistan. Which contributed to their collapse.
He also might have studied global finance where he could have learned about our debt problem and the petro-dollar and it’s importance on funding our military.
October 13, 2009 at 4:44 PM #469136Participant[quote=surveyor][quote=Arraya]If we “won” Vietnam, would anything be different? What would we have won, bragging rights?[/quote]
Bin Ladin said specifically that when he studied American history, that he concluded that America was a paper tiger, that if you bloody its nose, it would run away.
He got that lesson from Vietnam.[/quote]
Do you have a link for that quote because it sounds like a right-wing myth. Here is the only OBL vietnam quote I could find.
“In the Vietnam War, the leaders of the White House claimed at the time that it was a necessary and crucial war, and during it, Rumsfeld and his aides murdered two million villagers. And when Kennedy took over the presidency and deviated from the general line of policy drawn up for the White House and wanted to stop this unjust war, that angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”
“And so Kennedy was killed, and al-Qaida wasn�t present at that time, but rather, those corporations were the primary beneficiary from his killing. And the war continued after that for approximately one decade
Are you sure he didn’t study the fall of the soviet union? When he was a CIA asset we paid him to resist the half million soviet forces that were in Afghanistan. Which contributed to their collapse.
He also might have studied global finance where he could have learned about our debt problem and the petro-dollar and it’s importance on funding our military.
October 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM #468322Participant[quote=briansd1]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
U[/quote]
They were blaming him for the economy before he took office, what do you want.
October 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM #468505Participant[quote=briansd1]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
U[/quote]
They were blaming him for the economy before he took office, what do you want.
October 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM #468865Participant[quote=briansd1]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
U[/quote]
They were blaming him for the economy before he took office, what do you want.
October 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM #468937Participant[quote=briansd1]
I said that cons are blaming Obama for screwing wars that were already screwed up beyond repair.
U[/quote]
They were blaming him for the economy before he took office, what do you want.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.