Rabid anti-Obama moron

[Punkypink]

Or if Chris let him finish his sentence instead of cutting him off like a typical lefty. MSNBC is the biggest joke news network ever, CNNs getting there. I only watch Fox, why? Because they're the only ones to ask the right questions, and make the right stories. Hell they have a phone, under 24/7 watch that's connected to the white house so Obama can call in and answer the hundreds of questions he's being put on the spot for by Fox. We have yet to see the day.

Whats the point of letting someone finish a sentence when that sentence, which has already BEEN repeated a few times, does not answer the question?

 

It's like:

 

Chris: "Do you like apples?"

 

Kevin: "Apples are red!"

 

C: "Do you like apples?"

 

K: "Apples are red!"

 

C: "Do you like apples?"

 

K: "Apples are..."

 

C: "Answer the question, do you like apples?"

 

K: "Apples are re...."

 

C: "Answer the question, DO you like apples?"

 

K: "Apples are re..."

 

C: "Why won't you answer the question?"

 

K: "Why won't you let me finish my sentence?"

 

If you were in Chris' shoes and you were in such a conversation with someone else about... oh lets say how "awesome" Bush was and everytime you asked why that person thought Bush was bad, and he beat around the bush with one word he'd obtained from somewhere without any idea of its real meaning and refuses to answer the question, you'd do the same too.

 

When someone asks "What did so-and-so do?" the reply would be "so-and-so did this-or-that".

 

NOT:

 

Q: "What did al-Qaeda do on 9-11?"

 

A: "They were terrorists"

 

You being American, I really expect your grasp of the nuances of the English language to extend well beyond knowing how to answer TO a question.

[Stealthbomber]

Well, i'm not going to argue with you, like we did before (simply because i still hold a high respect for your service). But how is that not appeasement?

Heh, you realise you're kinda making it look like this is a common thing for Bush supporters now, right?

 

As others have said, appeasement requires that you actually let the other guy get away with something.

 

I think I already explained this once but, hey. Whatever...

If you steal my coat and I say "I'm gonna let you have that one as long as you promise not to do it again" that's appeasement.

If you steal my coat and we have a big fight over it and then, after I've knocked a couple of your teeth out, I say "Hey, we need to talk about this because otherwise I'm gonna break your legs" it is a whole other ballgame.

 

Do you think anybody was accusing Churchill (or Atlee) or Truman of "appeasement" in the way they dealt with the Germans after WW2?

 

We've been sticking it to the Taliban for longer than WW2 lasted.

That being the case, it's a little late to be accusing anybody of "appeasement" in suggesting we open up a dialogue with the other side after spending 8 years bombing the sh*t out of them.

[Taylorb]

To be honest, I read most of this but by the end ran out of the will to care, things kept getting repeated I thought I'd say my bit though, as I don't think anyone picked up on it.

 

I was astonished when Chris (It is Chris, right?) said he was an 'expert.' It's just that the second video, for me, showed that Chris himself didn't actually know very much about appeasement, and to be brutal his definition and explanation was shocking. I know a fair bit about the question of appeasement at the time, and I just thought it was unfair that no one picked Chris up on his knowledge especially because he was so confident in ridiculing the interviewee.

 

To be honest the date of the invasion of Czechoslovakia wasn't actually important in the debate, nor was the example itself, as it's not a great one. When he kept asking, "what was the date?" "What happened in 1938/39?"etc. The guy not knowing the date, or about the invasion itself wasn't important. The invasion isn't the best example, and it isn't at all necessary for you to know about it, if you want to make a point on the subject of Chamberlain's appeasement. That's why I thought it was weak of Chris to push the matter so hard on the interviewee...although I agree he was an idiot.

 

Personally I just thought it was a load of idiots bickering with each other. No one was particularly intelligent there, especially Chris as his style was poor.

 

I missed a few things out but just can't be bothered I thought I'd just raise that point though.

[Gir]

Because appeasing means giving into what they want, while talking to them just means talking to them. Also, with Bush, its not the response, its how he handled it. He mishandled a great number of things during his presidency(Iraq, New Orleans, the english language, etc.)

 

Appeasing terrorists. Hmmm, so whats our trade radio? 2 of us for 7 of them dead? The only thing i see terrorists wanting is to kill Americans. No? They want money? Yeah, to help kill more of us. I don't buy it. Obama himself said he wants to negotiate with these people. Iran is a GREAT demonstration. LOL, Obama said he wants them to stop building nuclear facilities. They said "No". We asked again nicely, "No, oh and we are building weapons". I haven't heard anything since. Now we're moving on to negotiate with Al-Queda members in Yemen.

 

Iraq was invaded to get rid of a dictator who killed his own people, and used chemical weapons (which in Geneva Conventions are labeled as WMDs), against his own. For pure pleasure. He tied people to poles, and used them as target practice. He was a sick you know what. He got what he deserved (all though, Ussay and Kussay got it pretty good too). I expect the typical left response of "We need to stop spreading western influence". So let me address that before you even type it. What influence? Freedom? Oh, ok, the people of Iraq loved being executed for play. Beautiful. Saddam did hate Osama Bin Laden, yep! At one point in time... Before September 11th and after, i do quite recall the people of Iraq, and Saddam condemning the attacks. If theres one image i remember from September 11th, besides the towers, planes and Osama, was people in the streets of Iraq waving their flags and praising Osama. It can also be proven that Saddam had helped fund Osama (SURPRISE! Osama doesn't work at your local super-market bagging groceries, no sorry, he got his funding from others).

 

New Orleans? PLEASE! I'm in an aviation unit in the Army. I fly on, fix, and maintain the CH-47D Chinook (And some Foxtrot models). I've seen the videos, heard the stories and read the articles about how we tried to help, but got shot at (Article here, http://www.murky.org/blg/katrina-shooting-at-the-choppers/ ). I quite vaguely remember a story of firefighters and their family's being trapped in a firehouse by gunmen. When rescue helicopters came, they were shot at. I have little, to no sympathy. Not because i am a bigot, or a racist (but i will probably be called it once of twice here for saying i have no sympathy). To me? It looks like we tried to help, but were halted by being shot at, or told "Excessive force was used". I turn on CNN and see reporters "Oh my god, security forces on trucks with guns running ramped!", then turn on Fox and watch a family get rescued from their home. Its poor, sorry arsed media. Oh, and did i mention we told them, WEEKS in advance to leave, there's a hurricane coming? Maybe some of THEM should learn the English language.

 

The English language? Good one bro!

Lets Recap this video. So i got out of it, 58 states (60 with Hawaii and Alaska), President AND Vice President Joe Biden? Wow. "Bush has trouble with a teleprompter, Obama has trouble without one". To be honest, i'll take George Bush, because to me speaking without a teleprompter says they're talking from the heart.

 

What else ya got for me bra?

 

If you steal my coat and I say "I'm gonna let you have that one as long as you promise not to do it again" that's appeasement.

If you steal my coat and we have a big fight over it and then, after I've knocked a couple of your teeth out, I say "Hey, we need to talk about this because otherwise I'm gonna break your legs" it is a whole other ballgame.

 

So "You knock my twin towers down, fly a plane into our government office, and drop one into the ground i'll let 2,976 deaths slide, but do it again, we'll have problems!"

 

Thats a huge joke, and an even bigger slap in the face to me.

 

Lastly, i think its cute that you suggest i'm ignorant and stupid because i support Bush, but i still show respect you that don't (and defend your views, by defending your liberties your gifted to have).

[Seraphim989]

Forgive me if this sounds unsympathetic, but so what if he was a bad dictator? There are dozens of countries all over the world with terrible leaders. Far more innocent people are killed in any number of Africans countries. But we didn't go to help them. Also, I was more focusing on the fact that the public was told one reason for going there, that turned out to be false. Also, much of the Muslim world was probably happy over the attacks, because they hate us. Much of that hatred comes from our support of Israel, but thats another discussion.

 

As for New Orleans, everyone knows it was mishandled. It took days to get supplies there, and it wasnt all because the vehicles were getting shot at.

 

As for the whole english skills thing, showing one mistake our current president made does not erase all the mistakes our previous president made. While this is hardly the worst thing about him, he did make many mistakes. You can watch just about any speech from him and see it, clear as day.

 

Finally, Im not calling you stupid or attacking you, so how about you do the same. Were having a nice discussion, theres no need for this to get locked due to people getting uppity.

[Gir]

Forgive me if this sounds unsympathetic, but so what if he was a bad dictator? There are dozens of countries all over the world with terrible leaders. Far more innocent people are killed in any number of Africans countries. But we didn't go to help them. Also, I was more focusing on the fact that the public was told one reason for going there, that turned out to be false. Also, much of the Muslim world was probably happy over the attacks, because they hate us. Much of that hatred comes from our support of Israel, but thats another discussion.

 

As for New Orleans, everyone knows it was mishandled. It took days to get supplies there, and it wasnt all because the vehicles were getting shot at.

 

As for the whole english skills thing, showing one mistake our current president made does not erase all the mistakes our previous president made. While this is hardly the worst thing about him, he did make many mistakes. You can watch just about any speech from him and see it, clear as day.

 

Finally, Im not calling you stupid or attacking you, so how about you do the same. Were having a nice discussion, theres no need for this to get locked due to people getting uppity.

 

Nothing is wrong. Until they arm your enemies. Last time i checked, it was still illegal to hire a hitman to kill someone (Yes, that is a comparison of Saddam and Osama).

 

It was mishandled because those trying to help were mistreated. If people listened, and weren't stupid "Naw fam, i funna stay down here, in ma house, and ride out the storm" (or the stupid retard that built that city UNDER WATER as it was), it would've never even happened.

 

Showing one mistake? I counted two bra! Oh, and he's been in 12 days past ONE YEAR, in office. While its cute you judge Bush for his 8 great years in office, your boy Obama still has a while to go.

 

Great job Sgt, care to challenge me on anything? I'd be glad to knock down everything you tee up for me.

[Jagdraben]

Iraq was invaded to get rid of a dictator who killed his own people, and used chemical weapons (which in Geneva Conventions are labeled as WMDs), against his own.

 

Over a decade after the fact!

 

And these same things occur everyday in Africa and SE Asia, yet we have not put a single bomb or bullet into any of those countries.

 

For pure pleasure. He tied people to poles, and used them as target practice. He was a sick you know what. He got what he deserved (all though, Ussay and Kussay got it pretty good too).

 

He got what he deserved. But worse criminals commit crimes that go unanswered for everyday.

 

Before September 11th and after, i do quite recall the people of Iraq, and Saddam condemning the attacks.

 

Uh... dumb question: How does one condemn an attack before it occurs?

 

It can also be proven that Saddam had helped fund Osama (SURPRISE! Osama doesn't work at your local super-market bagging groceries, no sorry, he got his funding from others).

 

If you can prove that, I'm sure you can also prove how you helped to fund Osama.

 

New Orleans? PLEASE! I'm in an aviation unit in the Army. I fly on, fix, and maintain the CH-47D Chinook (And some Foxtrot models). I've seen the videos, heard the stories and read the articles about how we tried to help, but got shot at (Article here, http://www.murky.org/blg/katrina-shooting-at-the-choppers/ ). I quite vaguely remember a story of firefighters and their family's being trapped in a firehouse by gunmen. When rescue helicopters came, they were shot at. I have little, to no sympathy. Not because i am a bigot, or a racist (but i will probably be called it once of twice here for saying i have no sympathy). To me? It looks like we tried to help, but were halted by being shot at, or told "Excessive force was used". I turn on CNN and see reporters "Oh my god, security forces on trucks with guns running ramped!", then turn on Fox and watch a family get rescued from their home. Its poor, sorry arsed media.

 

Er... what?

 

People who remained in New Orleans were tards, by and large. But the government's response was sluggish. The government knew the storm was coming, knew it was going to suck, and did not do a single thing to prepare for it.

 

You know the difference between a hurricane and a terrorist incident? You get days or weeks of notice on the hurricane, while the first time you'll likely hear of a terrorist incident is when it occurs. If New Orleans had been hit by a chemical or radiological or nuclear weapon, things would have been just as bad, and this alone, more than anything, proves that Bush and his administration was completely and utterly inept.

 

Thank God Muslim-Americans are too well educated and too well assimilated into American culture to be alienated the same way Muslims in Western Europe are. It is that and that alone that has kept us safe from al-Qaida. They simply cannot recruit here.

 

To be honest, i'll take George Bush, because to me speaking without a teleprompter says they're talking from the heart.

 

What else ya got for me bra?

 

Well, nothing. But I understand that you must be discombobulating your precedural erections!

 

So "You knock my twin towers down, fly a plane into our government office, and drop one into the ground i'll let 2,976 deaths slide, but do it again, we'll have problems!"

 

Thats a huge joke, and an even bigger slap in the face to me.

 

Er, no.

 

More along the lines of, you killed three thousand of our innocents, we've killed several tens of thousands of your countrymen and many more of you. You've killed a couple hundred of us. We don't seem to be getting anywhere, maybe we should talk this out. Or we can keep grinding your *albartroth* into the dirt for another eight years.

 

Lastly, i think its cute that you suggest i'm ignorant and stupid because i support Bush, but i still show respect you that don't (and defend your views, by defending your liberties your gifted to have).

 

I didn't know you were a lawyer! Or a cop. Or an EMT? Or... a doctor? Someone employed by the NRA or the ACLU...?

 

Nothing is wrong. Until they arm your enemies. Last time i checked, it was still illegal to hire a hitman to kill someone (Yes, that is a comparison of Saddam and Osama).

 

Except Saddam and Osama never had very many ties.

 

And the only ties they had were established after we invaded Iraq.

 

Maybe you need to be educated.

 

Osama bin Laden formed al-Qaida in Afghanistan, allied with people getting money from us. He then returned home. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, Saudi Arabia was scared shitless. They needed help. Osama bin Laden offered the aid of al-Qaida to the Saudis. They refused in favor of American and international aid.

 

Osama bin Laden didn't like America at all. He liked Saddam even less. And Saddam, sadistic pig *fruitcage* though he was, was not stupid. If he helped Osama, it would be his *albatross* in a sling and he knew it. He didn't want to give us a single reason to invade and his behavior shows this, right to the bitter end. Because he knew he would lose, because his military still hadn't recovered from the last time he tangled with us. Once we invaded, though, he doesn't have a single reason not to support the enemy of his enemy, does he? Nope. Not one bit.

 

It was mishandled because those trying to help were mistreated. If people listened, and weren't stupid "Naw fam, i funna stay down here, in ma house, and ride out the storm" (or the stupid retard that built that city UNDER WATER as it was), it would've never even happened.

 

Failure to plan is a plan to fail. There was no plan. As a result, the situation was mishandled, as always happens when bureaucracies attempt to fly by the seat of their pants.

[Chimpy]

Appeasing terrorists. Hmmm, so whats our trade radio? 2 of us for 7 of them dead? The only thing i see terrorists wanting is to kill Americans. No? They want money? Yeah, to help kill more of us. I don't buy it. Obama himself said he wants to negotiate with these people. Iran is a GREAT demonstration. LOL, Obama said he wants them to stop building nuclear facilities. They said "No". We asked again nicely, "No, oh and we are building weapons". I haven't heard anything since. Now we're moving on to negotiate with Al-Queda members in Yemen.

 

You seem to have an odd hang up with left wing politics.

 

Few factual snippets:

 

1) The Taliban are not terrorists of the ilk that threaten American soil they're better described as a collection of insurgent groups, one of which is the original country ruling Taliban. Negotiating with elements of them could bring about a side change along the lines of what happened with Sunni and Shi'ite militias in Iraq during 'the Surge'. Aside from which you will never kill your way to victory so the question is when do you negotiate. Also to reiterate negotiation is not appeasement.

 

2) Terrorism by Islamist extremists kills way more Muslims in the countries they operate in than it ever will Americans.

 

3) Obama with regards to Iran is merely carrying on the line Bush started.

 

4) Far from the US opening negotiations with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula it's the President of Yemen that has done so in defiance of what the US wanted.

 

A couple of books you should probably open:

The Accidental Guerrilla - David Kilcullen

Empires of Mud: The Neo-Taliban Insurgency in Afghanistan 2002-2007 - Antonio Giustozzi

[Misfit]

I find it rather weird that the US and many of its citizens are so fervently against negotiations of any kind with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other groups.

 

It seems to be selective amnesia. More people died as a result of IRA, PIRA, RIRA and other splinter groups actions than on 11th September 2001 (and in the case of RIRA and OIRA, still dying), however, the US Government, media and citizens largely condemned any attempt to defend ourselves. There were numerous demands to release prisoners such as Bobby Sands, not to mention the huge donations to NORAID over the years.

 

However, as soon as there are explosions on American soil there are suddenly renditions, wars in two countries at the same time, and numerous allegations of torture.

 

I personally find the policy of 'buying off' the Taliban extremely short-sighted. The Italian military gave money to the Taliban on the proviso that they would not attack each other. The Taliban used the money to buy more armaments, ammunition and other equipment. Soon the Italians were replaced by the French military, who then lost many lives and had numerous wounded.

 

"Bush has trouble with a teleprompter, Obama has trouble without one". To be honest, i'll take George Bush, because to me speaking without a teleprompter says they're talking from the heart.

 

What else ya got for me bra?

 

The revelation that Obama didn't use a Teleprompter while Bush did.

[Chimpy]

Buying off is definitely stupid if you aren't willing to continue paying and as I understand it the French weren't. It's also stupid in a wider context where that money is being funneled to support actions in other areas. It isn't the only means of negotiation though.

[Misfit]

Buying off is definitely stupid if you aren't willing to continue paying and as I understand it the French weren't. It's also stupid in a wider context where that money is being funneled to support actions in other areas. It isn't the only means of negotiation though.

 

No, of course not, it just seems to be the only one that has actually been implemented and accepted by the Taliban.

[Chimpy]

No, of course not, it just seems to be the only one that has actually been implemented and accepted by the Taliban.

 

The Taliban aren't one uniform group and the offer of money isn't the only negotiation that has occurred to date:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/asia/11taliban.html

[Misfit]

The Taliban aren't one uniform group

 

No, but it is simply easier to refer to them as a collective to reduce confusion, as both the media and numerous Government agencies do.

[galactica]

... you judge Bush for his 8 great years in office

 

really? REALLY? wow. I'm not sure even Fox News would dare to call them 8 great years.

[Chimpy]

No, but it is simply easier to refer to them as a collective to reduce confusion, as both the media and numerous Government agencies do.

 

My point was less to do with that and I made that distinction above in my reply to Gir. It's more to do with the fact that it is a loose grouping and different groups are more or less amenable to negotiation than others, simple and easy explanations lose nuance in this regard. I don't really want this to be an argument but I think this distinction is important in order to explain what is going on.

[Gir]

Over a decade after the fact!

 

And these same things occur everyday in Africa and SE Asia, yet we have not put a single bomb or bullet into any of those countries.

 

We're obviously trying to help. If you haven't read (which i am pretty sure you haven't), we've been trying to help with Darfur by sending peace keeps there. Our military is only so strong, and nation only so rich. We can't be everywhere at once there superman.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/washington/06darfur.html

 

He got what he deserved. But worse criminals commit crimes that go unanswered for everyday.

 

Sure thing bra! Throw me some criminals that are worse than Saddam and Osama. Lets hear it. Hitler? His *albartroth* is dead.

 

 

Uh... dumb question: How does one condemn an attack before it occurs?

 

Eh, poor choice of words on my part, i mean approving. Not condemned, was thinking of something else.

 

If you can prove that, I'm sure you can also prove how you helped to fund Osama.

 

http://hnn.us/articles/5745.html

 

Yeah i can prove how i've helped him too, back in the days of the Russian war in Afghanistan, we armed, trained and helped (secretly) the Taliban. Yes, this happened. I know. My tax dollars.

 

Er, no.

 

More along the lines of, you killed three thousand of our innocents, we've killed several tens of thousands of your countrymen and many more of you. You've killed a couple hundred of us. We don't seem to be getting anywhere, maybe we should talk this out. Or we can keep grinding your *albartroth* into the dirt for another eight years.

 

Talk this out? How in the hell to you talk something out with people that just want to kill Americans? Thats the biggest problem here, you think those people over there, don't want to kill Americans, but they just do. "Oh, no, i really don't wanna do this, please don't make me, please!". Get real kid. Those people over there hate Americans, they want nothing else but to watch America burn. Osama has vowed to get another attack off on the US. So why should we let him? Obviously you want to negotiate with that. Lets send you over there to the man himself to talk out a plan. Enjoy being tortured and probably put on a video that will be shown all around the world.

 

I didn't know you were a lawyer! Or a cop. Or an EMT? Or... a doctor? Someone employed by the NRA or the ACLU...?

 

Again, typical lefty. "Whats a military? They're so unimportant! They don't do anything for us. Its not like they give us rights we are BLESSED to have!"

 

Except Saddam and Osama never had very many ties.

 

By now, you've probably read that link (or not, if your THAT single minded), and know by now that ties to helping Al-Qaeda were had in May of 2002, we didn't even spit at Iraq untill 2003. Next...

 

Failure to plan is a plan to fail. There was no plan. As a result, the situation was mishandled, as always happens when bureaucracies attempt to fly by the seat of their pants.

 

Failure to plan? Thats a joke. All i saw on the news was "Wheres my free stuff? Where my free housing?" I live in Minnesota, i've been through a few tornadoes, and i never once called my government asking for my free stuff. I didn't call FEMA asking for free housing because my electricity was out for days. HELL no, i adapted. My community got together, pulled their own weight, and helped EVERYONE in my area out with removing downed trees, damage to houses, and cleaning up the streets.

 

The revelation that Obama didn't use a Teleprompter while Bush did.

 

 

Ahh OOPS! LOL! Thats not a teleprompter or anything. Decoration right?

[galactica]

FFS they all use teleprompters. Always. They go "off prompt" if they feel like it. What, do you think they all memorise every speech they have to give? Reality check required.

 

Re: New Orleans. Your views are so ridiculous I can't even begin to go in to it. Suffice it to say you have a world view - ok, not even world view, NATION view that beggars belief in the modern world. All you saw on the news was "where's my free stuff" because you admit to watching a "news" channel by and for complete morons.

[Stealthbomber]

Throw me some criminals that are worse than Saddam and Osama. Lets hear it. Hitler? His *albartroth* is dead.

Oooh, off the top of my head, let's see...

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Muamar Quaddafi right now.

 

If we go back a little further there's also the likes of Ferdinand Marcos, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin and the ever-popular Fidel Castro.

 

Kinda odd that the big-hearted US of A only ever decided to open up the can of whupass on Saddam isn't it?

[Punkypink]

Sure thing bra! Throw me some criminals that are worse than Saddam and Osama. Lets hear it. Hitler? His *albartroth* is dead.

Don't even go there. You'll be pwned so hard and fast it won't even be funny.

 

There are lots as bad as, or worse than Saddam and Osama. Just because the Bush administration didn't mention them and because you don't know about them doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

Edit: Stealth's just been kind enough to give you the education I can't even be bothered to give you because it's not like you're going to suddenly see sense.

[my_plague_666]

I find it rather weird that the US and many of its citizens are so fervently against negotiations of any kind with the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other groups.

 

It seems to be selective amnesia. More people died as a result of IRA, PIRA, RIRA and other splinter groups actions than on 11th September 2001 (and in the case of RIRA and OIRA, still dying), however, the US Government, media and citizens largely condemned any attempt to defend ourselves. There were numerous demands to release prisoners such as Bobby Sands, not to mention the huge donations to NORAID over the years.

 

However, as soon as there are explosions on American soil there are suddenly renditions, wars in two countries at the same time, and numerous allegations of torture.

 

i have always thought the same. it always seems to be the case that america doesnt give a *suitcase* until it directly affects them. in fact the USA funded terrorist groups like the IRA and the mujahideen in afghanistan (which bin laden was a part of)

 

gir, all you're doing is making yourself look like an *albatross*. might be better to stop digging yourself deeper.*

 

*thanks for that PP couldnt think of the right term.

[Punkypink]

Quit before he's dug himself too deep you mean.

[Gir]

Oooh, off the top of my head, let's see...

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, Muamar Quaddafi right now.

 

If we go back a little further there's also the likes of Ferdinand Marcos, Slobodan Milosevic, Idi Amin and the ever-popular Fidel Castro.

 

Kinda odd that the big-hearted US of A only ever decided to open up the can of whupass on Saddam isn't it?

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Personally i hope we go to war with them, and kill that jack *albatross* too, but not in this administration. McCain was all about it, thats why i voted for him.

 

Kim Jong Il - He has cancer, his son isn't as big of a nut as he is, he'll die soon enough. But on the contrary he may do something stupid "Oh im gonna die anyways" ######. So gotta keep an eye on him. But he doesn't kill innocent people as far as i know. Besides, 2ND ID is standing by to deliver the whooping if he goes south, literally.

 

Those are the two making it in my books right now. But i'm sure as time progresses more will make the mainstream radar.

 

Again with your last statement, I voted for my man McCain. I am ready to lay it down on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at ANY second.

 

This whole topic wreaks of left winged people being biased against right winged. Again, i have never talked down to anyone about their views. But people like, Punkypink, plague, and others with your stupid "Stop digging your hole" ######, is disrespectful to my ideas. I understand i am the only conservative on this board, but respect should still be had. I'm proud of myself thus far, normally I'd lose it. I believe in freedom for all, and on these boards, in this topic, i hear the words "Stop digging your hole deeper", to hint that my freedom to say what i want, doesn't go here either.

 

The only reason i stick up for Bush, and all he did, is because so many bash him for helping make the world safer. "Stop these wars", why would you speak for me? I am going on my next deployment, VOLUNTARILY, to Afghanistan in 2011, and I'm stoked. I want to go, i want to help, i want to see freedom for all. Hell my whole unit is stoked for this deployment. I wasn't there for our Iraq deployment, but they don't stop talking how much they enjoyed it, and how much they feel they've changed for the better.

 

Jesus...

[Punkypink]

The only reason you get the "stop digging yourself deeper" response is because you don't say none of all of what you've just said, and say something smacking of someone trying to be a smarta** with things like

 

"Throw me some criminals that are worse than Saddam and Osama. Lets hear it. Hitler? His *albartroth* is dead."

 

TILL someone points out that there ARE worse people. Well, WHY didn't you say what you just did before that fact was pointed out to you? How do you expect people to respect you when you don't even appear not to know your stuff, look like you're hoping to throw smoke and bulls**t your way out of a tight corner, and have no credibility, just like that Kevin fella?

 

Maybe when you can debate in a more logical manner instead of constantly trying to appear like a smarta** with an overly big mouth and little actual substance, people will give you the respect even if they disagree with you.

 

And by the way, you said earlier:

 

"Bush has trouble with a teleprompter, Obama has trouble without one". To be honest, i'll take George Bush, because to me speaking without a teleprompter says they're talking from the heart.

 

What else ya got for me bra?

 

Misfit was pointing out yo YOU that by YOUR words it is Bush using one, not Obama, and your next line saying you'll take George Bush because he speaks without a teleprompter etc is in contradiction to the sentence before that. Once again it is your I'm-a-tough-cookie "what else ya got for me bra?" that warrented his response that you've just posted 2 contradicting sentences, that if you're attempting to look like a smart alec, its not working and you should stop shooting yourself in the foot.

 

But I guess thats also gone completely over your head and you're just going to post more smart alecky responses.

[Chimpy]

This whole topic wreaks of left winged people being biased against right winged. Again, i have never talked down to anyone about their views. But people like, Punkypink, plague, and others with your stupid "Stop digging your hole" ######, is disrespectful to my ideas. I understand i am the only conservative on this board, but respect should still be had. I'm proud of myself thus far, normally I'd lose it. I believe in freedom for all, and on these boards, in this topic, i hear the words "Stop digging your hole deeper", to hint that my freedom to say what i want, doesn't go here either.

 

The silly thing is you aren't the only conservative, you are the only conservative blindly defending some stupid *suitcase*. This topic speaks more to your insecurity in having you world view challenged by people here than any "left wing bias". If you can't take the heat don't stick your opinion in the mix!

 

"Stop these wars", why would you speak for me? I am going on my next deployment, VOLUNTARILY, to Afghanistan in 2011, and I'm stoked. I want to go, i want to help, i want to see freedom for all. Hell my whole unit is stoked for this deployment. I wasn't there for our Iraq deployment, but they don't stop talking how much they enjoyed it, and how much they feel they've changed for the better.

 

We aren't in two wars for your personal enjoyment! People are perfectly entitled to not want their country at war with two others if they think the reasons for doing it are wrong headed or that the action is counterproductive. Don't take it personally!

 

It's when you say things like this my eyes roll back in my head:

 

Yeah i can prove how i've helped him too, back in the days of the Russian war in Afghanistan, we armed, trained and helped (secretly) the Taliban. Yes, this happened. I know. My tax dollars.

 

Newsflash the Taliban didn't exist until 1992, you didn't fund, arm or train them directly or indirectly in any meaningful manner. However individuals that later went on to join them as well as some of the Mujahideen groups who also joined them may have received some support during the Soviet occupation.

 

Seriously if you are about to deploy to A'stan those two books I linked earlier would be really good reading.

[Misfit]

Am I the only one that has noticed the definition of patriotism appears to have changed in America?

 

It is no longer simply supporting your country, but supporting your chosen Government of the day. This seems to extend to supporting every single one of their policy decisions, lest you be branded unpatriotic/an appeaser. This even seems to have been adopted by the political parties themselves, "You're either with us or you're against us".