FLASHBACK: In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable
FLASHBACK: In 1999, Bush Demanded A Timetable
President Bush will soon ignore the will of the American people and veto a bill that would set a timeline for ending U.S. involvement in Iraq’s civil war.
For the last several weeks, Bush and members of his administration have attacked proponents of a timeline, saying they were undermining U.S. generals and legislating defeat:
I believe artificial timetables of withdrawal would be a mistake. … I will strongly reject an artificial timetable withdrawal and/or Washington politicians trying to tell those who wear the uniform how to do their job. [President Bush, 4/23/07]
“The…attempt to micromanage our commanders is an unwise and perilous endeavor. It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region.” [Vice President Cheney, 4/13/07]
“He’s also in denial that a surrender date he thinks is a good idea. It is not a good idea. It is defeat. It is a death sentence for the millions of Iraqis who voted for a constitution, who voted for a government, who voted for a free and democratic society.” [Dana Perino, 4/23/07]
Flashback to 1999, when George W. Bush was governor of Texas. Then, Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo.
George W. Bush, 4/9/99, Houston Chronicle:
“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”
And on the specific need for a timetable:
George W. Bush, 6/5/99, Scripps Howard/Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”
Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq.
UPDATE: We’ve placed the full text of the 1999 articles online HERE.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Does this actually surprise anyone? When out of power, politicians are always demanding something "good" - but once they get in power, they use what is given to them to often times do just the opposite of what they say.
Bush is a perfect example of this - but politicians on both sides of the aisle do it quite well...
A good read on this: "Promises, Promises"
http://www.populistamerica.com/promises__promises
May 1st, 2007 at 12:11 pmIt's easier to throw darts than to be the target of the darts.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pmEvery heard of changing your mind? You know. Presidents are allowed to do that too.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:15 pmOf course nothing this lying hypocrite says means a d*mn thing. He is a sociopathic liar, and probably a psychopath too.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:16 pmWhy has it taken you so long to figure out this little tidbit and find that quote? I mean, the President has stated since the day timetable was first mentioned -- say 2 or 3 years ago to be nice -- that he opposes them.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:18 pmQ: Why does President Bush change his mind?
A: To remind himself that he has one.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pmI can only assume you were all against Clinton when he wasn't providing an exist strategy.........
May 1st, 2007 at 12:20 pmI strongly supported President Clinton's efforts to stop the slaughter in Kosovo in the 1990s and was dismayed by the opposition of many Republicans to that effort. I thought their opposition was wrong then and now we see that that opposition is coming back to bite them.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:22 pmEvery heard of changing your mind? You know. Presidents are allowed to do that too.
Comment by MAF54
Especially when there's a partisan political goal to be had. Bush almost got whiplash from changing course so suddenly.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pmBush is a certified moronic hypocrite who needs to be institutionalized.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:23 pmActually, Clinton did much better with providing humanity with an exist strategy.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pmBush is hell bent for leather on providing an extinction stategy.
Why should this be surprising? Look back a few posts to the one about how Bush can't see past his own short-term political gain.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm#7 - No. The Kosovo mission was working.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pmRoger_Roger,
Wow what an original question. Get a new line of reasoning that one is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo old.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pm911 Truth Ends War
May 1st, 2007 at 12:25 pmI strongly supported President Clinton’s efforts to stop the slaughter in Kosovo in the 1990s and was dismayed by the opposition of many Republicans to that effort. I thought their opposition was wrong then and now we see that that opposition is coming back to bite them.
Comment by Exley
How even handed you sound! Too bad you can't post anything to back up this assertion. Then it might be convincing.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:26 pmEver heard of flip-flopping? You know, Democratic presidential candidates aren't allowed to do that.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pmBush cultist: "Every heard of changing your mind? You know. Presidents are allowed to do that too."
Right. I think I've heard of it somewhere. Oh, I know. It was during the last presidential election. You guys had a different term for it at that time. You called it "flip-flopping."
May 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pmRoger-Roger
May 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhat difference does it make in the world what anyone else thought about Clinton at that time.
The point is that this president, who can make a difference in the world, is so duplicitous, and cannot be trusted.
This is called flip flopping. It's lack of vision. No real plan. No foresite.
Kerry got slapped down for changing his view on spending for this clusterfu@k but the forever forgiving bushmen here won't call it what it is.
This isn't about Clinton, it's about Bush who said one thing and reversed. All the Clinton Bashers of the time had the same view. Now they have the opposite because it's them in the crosshairs.
No principle. No real argument.
Flip and flop, repeat.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:28 pmIt's not about victory or defeat. And it's not for the benefit of Iraq or its neighbors as it's obvious that US presence only escalates violence. If the US want to continue stealing oil and milking the Iraqi government they cannot withdraw. I assume that anyone who is against a timetable is only voicing that they are happy trading 100 US lives per month to fatten already fat corporations.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmRoger,
CLINTON ISN'T IN OFFICE!! LET IT GO!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:30 pmThis is why having a bad memory comes in so handy.
Maybe if they named Bill Clinton the "war czar," old habits would kick in and they would start badgering him for an exit strategy. The main difference being that Clinton is apt to produce one.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmI don't recall...
May 1st, 2007 at 12:31 pmHypocrisy fro a republican. Color me shocked.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 pmThink Progress continues to compare apples to watermellons. These are two very different scenarios with two very different effects from withdrawal.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 pm"I can only assume you were all against Clinton when he wasn’t providing an exist strategy………
Comment by Roger_Roger — May 1, 2007"
Because we ALL remember how there were 100's of US troops dying each month in former Yugoslavia. We remember the terrorist bombings of US, the hundreds of amputees, the billions of dollars of US military equipment getting ground into the dust...The regional instability caused by the Kosovo conflict......and the scores and scores of US troop deaths.
Clinton ran a successful war, Bush has failed twice.
-GSD
May 1st, 2007 at 12:33 pmRoger,
CLINTON ISN’T IN OFFICE!! LET IT GO!!!
Comment by Crump's Brother
But this story is about when Clinton was in office. To not relate him to the situation is wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pmI seem to recall some major event that affected the United States since 1999...what was it.?...emmmm.....
May 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pmThere's an easy way to tell if this is a true change of mind, a different situation, or a flip-flop. Ask Bush to explain the two positions. I'm sure with his articulatory and logisticating skills he can muddy the clear waters for us all.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pmA great, truthful one liner submitted by Raven.."Bush is hell bent for leather on providing an extinction strategy." ...Me think's this has been the sole purpose since cheney/ rove/ bush/ rice/ wolfawits/ pearl and all of this evil group ploted to steal the election's and go after the worlds wealth long before they were self imposed.....Blessings
May 1st, 2007 at 12:36 pmBut this story is about when Clinton was in office and Bush did not agree with anything Clinton did or said, just like when Bush was "elected" and undid Clinton's policies in many areas, including attention to terrorism. To not relate Bush's contempt of Clinton is wrong.
There, now it's fixed.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pmRoger cubed is curled up in a corner.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:38 pmIt's rough when your first post of the day contains a typo which completely changes the whole meaning of what he was trying to say..........
The Republican trolls here must be afraid of Clinton's gleaming legacy. Considering they've had to set of a dedicated group of full-time staff to try to polish Reagan's dismal legacy and Bush continually tries to establish a legacy for himself other than one of outright failure, the Republicans must hate to look at Clinton's legacy of prosperity, economic growth, record budget surpluses, and lower rates of poverty and just quiver with fear and hate.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmYou see, Kosovo has 3 syllables while Iraq has 2
so they're totally different, you see
May 1st, 2007 at 12:39 pmI can only assume you were all against Clinton when he wasn’t providing an exist [sic] strategy………
Comment by Roger_Roger — May 1, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Great Freudian slip there. An "exist" strategy would be nice since hundreds of thousands of people have died because of Bush and his policies. At least your subconscious knows the truth, Roger.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pmBut this story is about when Clinton was in office. To not relate him to the situation is wrong. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Which situation is that? The one where it shows what hypocrites and fools you Conservatives are? Your post shows that sufficiently as well dum bass! HEHEHE
May 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pmBush cultist: "Think Progress continues to compare apples to watermellons."
Yes, I see your point. Comparing the 42nd president to the 43rd president doesn't work for you. You compare Iraq to WWII, but you can't possibly compare it to Kosovo.
See, this is why you guys get no respect around here. You make absolutely no sense.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pm"I seem to recall some major event that affected the United States since 1999…what was it.?…emmmm…..
Comment by Patrick1"
i'm highly disappointed that it took you until #29 to put up the most predictable post evah.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:40 pmI can only assume you were all against Clinton when he wasn’t providing an exist strategy……… Comment by Roger_Roger — May 1, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
We can only assume you agreed with Bush then, but not when he's the one that has to live up to his own words? Hypocrite!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pm"The left hand
(gestures with the right)
doesn't know what the right hand
(gestures with the left)
is doing."
George W. Bush
May 1st, 2007 at 12:41 pmPUERTO PIRITU, Venezuela (Reuters) -- President Hugo Chavez's government took over Venezuela's last remaining privately run oil fields Tuesday, intensifying a decisive struggle with Big Oil over one of the world's most lucrative deposits.
Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez declared that the oil fields had reverted to state control just after midnight. Television footage showed workers in hard hats raising the flags of Venezuela and the national oil company at a refinery and four drilling fields in the oil-rich Orinoco River basin. Chavez planned a more elaborate celebration Tuesday afternoon with red-clad oil workers, soldiers and a fly over by Russian-made fighter jets.
READ HERE:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/international/bc.venezuela.nationalization.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
May 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pmMurtha revises: Impeachment is 'on the table'
Now if he can get Pelosi to stop her crap and go along with that....
=P
May 1st, 2007 at 12:42 pmI seem to recall some major event that affected the United States since 1999…what was it.?…emmmm….. Comment by Patrick1 — May 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
It was Bush using the Supreme Court to STEAL an election, and then proceeding to ALLOW a terrorist attack on our soil, as well as him f*cking up the economy, and everything he touched!
What HAPPENED SON, was that Bush failed - yet again. Just like YOUR POSTS - Jake*ss!
May 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pmReid: Bush Must Halt Slaying of Terrorist Leaders
by Scott Ott
(2007-05-01) — As unconfirmed news broke that the chief of al-Qaeda in Iraq may have been killed in a battle with a rival terror group, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on President George Bush to step in and halt the slaying of terror leaders.
“It’s a known fact that every time a terror leader is killed, another rises to take his place,†said Sen. Reid. “Therefore, the only way to stop the spawning of new terror leaders is to halt the slaying of the current ones.â€
The Nevada Democrat said Mr. Bush should petition the United Nations to send in an unarmed peacekeeping force to protect the known terror leaders from accidental or intentional execution by Iraqi and U.S. forces, as well as by their own colleagues in the terror industry.
“If these guys keep getting knocked off,†Sen. Reid said, “how will we ever build relationships that lead to negotiations and peace treaties? The longer a terror leader stays at the helm, the more we can get to know him. When Democrats talk about bringing stability to the region, this is what we mean.â€
May 1st, 2007 at 12:44 pmBTW, I heard about this little tid bit several week's ago...Bush telling Clinton to submit a time line etc: and I wrote my representatives, Palosi and Reid as well demanding they make bush accountable and his past demand's, just incase they had forgotten....Have you all written your rep's to remind them of bush word's then and now.? Please do so, nothing will get done unless we continue to let them know (we are watching)....Blessings
May 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmThis is a good post. After you you get done cherishing Bush's contradiction, ask yourself why Clinton (the left's Einstein of foreign policy) resisted a timetable? Maybe it is not a good idea to broadcast that you are leaving on a certain date regardless of what the conditions may be. If Clinton were consistent he would be one of the lead spokesmen for a 'stay the course' strategy.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:45 pmI agree Murtha should be impeached.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:46 pmHey mental,
Nice try but not buying it. You are Clinton obsessed... we understand.
However the stupid f*ck running this country, government, economy, and military into the ground is an unprecedented failure, with the possible exception of Richard "the crook" Nixon, evil paranoid prick he was.
There is no comparrison, period.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:46 pmMove on, we're not buying.
Which situation is that? The one where it shows what hypocrites and fools you Conservatives are? Your post shows that sufficiently as well dum bass! HEHEHE
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Congratulations on making no sense at all.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pmYes, I see your point. Comparing the 42nd president to the 43rd president doesn’t work for you. You compare Iraq to WWII, but you can’t possibly compare it to Kosovo.
See, this is why you guys get no respect around here. You make absolutely no sense.
Comment by Bluedog49
Don't remember comparing Iraq to WWII, can you show where I did that?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:47 pmIt's amazing the Trolls here continually bring up 9/11 to defend some position or other. When your fearful leader out-rightly failed to stop the worst terrorist attack ever to occur on United States soil, despite receiving warnings, you'd think you would want to stop embarrassing yourselves. Of course, Bush's quick reaction -- continuing to read a children's book for several minutes after being told "The country is under attack" shows what a true "leader" we have in George "I think I pissed myself" Bush.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmHey mental,
Nice try but not buying it. You are Clinton obsessed… we understand.
However the stupid f*ck running this country, government, economy, and military into the ground is an unprecedented failure, with the possible exception of Richard “the crook†Nixon, evil paranoid prick he was.
There is no comparrison, period.
Move on, we’re not buying.
Comment by Republic666ans are evil
I didn't bring up Clinton. The article at the top did since it was Clinton that was president in 1999. Please try and follow here, maybe I should go slower for you.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmLooks like the only consistant one is McCain heh, who would have thought.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmYou can't expect a drunken frat boy to remember what he said eight years ago. Afterall, he has more important things to occupy himself with like riding his bike, weekends at Camp David and entertaining his "wife" Condi.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:50 pmClinton ran a successful war, Bush has failed twice.
-GSD
Comment by GSD — May 1, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Sorry. There are no succesful wars, there are no humanitarian wars (as Kosovo was sold), there are no just wars (as WWII is sold). If one measures the degree of success of an armed conflict according to the number of your forces that return alive to your country, then those bombers that blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of civilians must have been the most succesful operation in history. It just depends on which side you are. In a war, nobody wins. There are no sides.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pmI wish this country would remember what happened since 1999. Too easily we forget and allow us to be led by less than honorable men and women.
Bush isn't a man of prinicple, he's an opportunist and a puppet. 9/11 has nothing to do with having over 100,000 hired guns in Iraq. We are paying these private contractors many times more than what we would a soldier. But these mercs don't have to follow the same standards. That's what our govt. has decided to do. We would have over 300,000 troops in Iraq if it weren't for the 21st century hussiens (?).
All who are supporting Bush are supporting the use of hired guns instead of a shared sacrifice and a legit military. Didn't we win a war against hired guns?
May 1st, 2007 at 12:51 pmLooks like the only consistant one is McCain heh, who would have thought.
Comment by Tundra
Are you calling McCain consistant?
hahahahahaha
funny....
May 1st, 2007 at 12:53 pmYou can't expect a spoiled frat boy to remember what he said eight years ago. Remember, Prezidenting is hard work--just as Brownie. Besides, The Decider has more important things to think about like riding his bike, his ongoing Guiness record as the laziest president in history and entertaining his "wife" Condi.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pm#52: That's just one ridiculous talking point that just doesn't seem to go away. Just what should President Bush have done when he heard of the incident? Jump up, wave his hands in panic and scream at the kids? No. He acted like a real President: calm and collected.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:54 pmBoy, W has aged a little since '99.
Heat getting to you, W?
Well, Mission Accomplished!
Your two word culture club was impressed with that carefully crafted crap.
How about you meet in the middle with the Dems, admit you f#cked the whole thing up, establish firm timetables & benchmarks & save your soiled legacy?
No?
OK. Bring in the Impeachment towel, boys, it's time to throw it in.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:55 pmPresidents can change their mind. Which is why I hope someone in the press asks him or Tony Snow about this so we can hear his reasons. I'm sure they'll be fantastic.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pmThe only thing consistent about McCain is his constant flip-flopping.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:56 pmAs for Bush on 9/11: he should have gotten up and excused himself. It's really quite simple. He could have told them he had to go potty. Instead of, you know, just sitting there and doing it anyways.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pmIt must be lunch hour at gestapo headquarters. The true believers are out in force, or just changing their names a lot.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pmSorry. There are no succesful wars, there are no humanitarian wars (as Kosovo was sold), there are no just wars (as WWII is sold). If one measures the degree of success of an armed conflict according to the number of your forces that return alive to your country, then those bombers that blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing thousands of civilians must have been the most succesful operation in history. It just depends on which side you are. In a war, nobody wins. There are no sides.
Comment by Juan C
I would expect a post like this from you. Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted, killing thousands and thousands of jews until he grew to rule the world? Do you think your life would be better now if you were ruled under the Nazi regime? Or maybe you would have been turned into a lamp shade by now.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pmDouble-talking neonazi! Everything this guy says is a lie! It's time for the State Governments to take the "governance" of their people into their own hands which is precisely what the Founding Fathers suggested "if/when the federal government fails the people". NY State did so with their impeachment proceedings yesterday; other states need to follow suit. As well, it's time to take the law-breaking illegal alien situation into hand by the individual states. The Federal Government continues to fail the american people in every department, every aspect of the law, and it's "time"for the people to take back control via each State Government.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pmLooks like the only consistant one is McCain heh, who would have thought.
Comment by Tundra — May 1, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Troll comments are becoming increasingly bizarre and unhinged from reality.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm#52: That’s just one ridiculous talking point that just doesn’t seem to go away. Just what should President Bush have done when he heard of the incident? Jump up, wave his hands in panic and scream at the kids? No. He acted like a real President: calm and collected.
Comment by MAF54
I believe when he was told of the incident it was that a plane crashed into the world trade center. He was not told that we were under attack, but a horrible accident had just happened.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pmIf the "enabling congress" fails to recognize the critical mandate of the mass consciousness of the people by dragging their feet or giving in to this Dictator, then it's time for the people to regain control of their individual states and stand up to both Congress and the Federal government.
May 1st, 2007 at 12:58 pmComment by MAF54
Please explain why using the AIM moniker of a pedophile ex-congressman should endear use to believe one f*cking thing you post?
Obviously a pedophile is your hero, since you use his name, pervert.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmBush has defined a withdrawal strategy. When the peace is won.
It's as simple as that.
Not sure why you surrender monkeys are on his back so much. If you want a withdrawal date, why not tonight? What's the difference between tonight and 6 months from now or 5 years from now? If you plan on surrendering, why not just get on with it?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmMAF54,
In a world that the extremist Republic666ans have characterized as extremely dangerous with everyone wanting to launch nukes at us, time is of the essence. He had no way of knowing what the threat was, so continue with story time with the kids, I don't think so. He was frozen pissing his pants.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:00 pmDo you think your life would be better now if you were ruled under the Nazi regime?
What makes you think that the Nazis would still be in power right now?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pm"I would expect a post like this from you."
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Juan, I think she has a crush on you. She's already talking to you as if you're married.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmSince in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted, killing thousands and thousands of jews until he grew to rule the world?
Read Howard Zinn. He was bombing German cities and thought he was doing a good thing.
Hitler ruling the world??? You are delusional. For real.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmAs I said, WWII has been sold at you bought the whole kit.
He acted like a real President: calm and collected.
Comment by SMF54 — May 1, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Huh. sitting dumbfounded, with the deer in the headlights look, for over 7 minutes, is now "calm and collected"?
Whodathunk?
Oh, and strumming a guitar in Arizona while thousands drowned in New Orleans. Yeah, that's our calm, collected, and concerned President.
Now, how do I get involved in an exist strategy?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmIs that similar to existentialism?
Why am I here? and for how long?
oh my God. BUsh is talking right now, said he's going to sign the bill, and let everyone leave GITMO!!!
oh, wait, no he's not.
*sigh*
It's like a Repuplican talking point rehash. You know, the SAME one he's given for 3 years now...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmUMMM..... Breaking.....
May 1st, 2007 at 1:01 pmIraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has created an office within the Iraqi government that U.S. and Iraqi military officials say is being used as a smokescreen to carry out an extreme Shiite agenda that is worsening the country's sectarian divide. "It's people with no power who want to have power," a senior Iraqi army officer told CNN.
Damn, he's aged 20 years in the last 8.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmMental,
You said "I believe..."
May 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pmdon't really care what you believe.
She’s already talking to you as if you’re married.
Comment by Republicans are the Fear and Smear Party
Ha hahahaha. Im laughing so hard... havent realized that.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmFor an administration that claims to place so value on "accountability," the Bush White House once again exempted itself and its allies. On Monday, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice announced that President Bush would reject any Iraq funding bill that included benchmarks for the Al Maliki in government in Baghdad. As it turns out, that free pass for Al Maliki not only flies in the face the President's own words from January, but contradicts the "accountability" talking point comically present in virtually all of Bush's other rhetoric.
For the details, see:
May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pm"Benchmark and Bush's Double-Standard on Accountability in Iraq."
What’s the difference between tonight and 6 months from now or 5 years from now?
Billions and billions and billions of dollars given to war profiteering Republic666ans, and death for American soldiers.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:04 pmWhat makes you think that the Nazis would still be in power right now?
Comment by bob's your uncle
Well if he followed his there is no just war then nobody would stop them.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:07 pmOver $340 billion has been spent so far on a war that nobody wants. The situation in Iraq is still far from stable and it doesn't appear as though this will change anytime soon. So wouldn't the logical solution be to either change our strategy, drastically, or get out? Not only will this satisfy the majority of the world, it will free up the United States to spend money on other issues, instead of just throwing it at an impossible cause. In 2000 we agreed to the Millennium Goals which outline a plan to end poverty. According to the Borgen project only $19 billion annually is needed to eliminate world hunger. Think of everything we could accomplish if we were free to use our resources on something other than war.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmRead Howard Zinn. He was bombing German cities and thought he was doing a good thing.
Hitler ruling the world??? You are delusional. For real.
As I said, WWII has been sold at you bought the whole kit.
Comment by Juan C
Pretty simple really. You beleive there is no just war. Since Hitler had no problem killing people and if we didn't stand up to him he would rule. That's the problem with pacifists, they can't understand that there are bad people that want to kill them.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:10 pmMental,
You said “I believe…â€
don’t really care what you believe.
Comment by Republic666ans are evil
Do you know what was said to him? Do you actually think that they knew right away we were under attack, even before the second plane crashed?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:11 pm"What makes you think that the Nazis would still be in power right now?"
They are. They have the presidency.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:12 pmJordan,
You are assuming there is a strategy at all, there isn't.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:13 pmIt's already been documented that Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush that "America is under attack" on 9/11/01. Sheesh, are you just coming out of a coma?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pmMental,
Dubya has no problem killing people either.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:14 pm#31. Sharon.
thanks, I was jabbing at Roger2's typo (?) regarding the Clinton "exist" strategy.:)
I firmly believe that the corporatist sponsors of the neo-con Bushco regime have staked their survival (and to hell with anyone elses, especially impoverished non-white cultures) on technology, an eventual artificially created environment, and the plundering of the Earth's resources in a race to achieve the necessary infrastructure for the provisioning of their enclaves.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmSince in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted, killing thousands and thousands of jews until he grew to rule the world?
Most Americans were cool with that. It was the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor that changed all that.
2/3 of all Americans have at least some German ancestry, and many (especially in Texas) still spoke German as their first language back then.
Once again, conservatives don't know a fucking thing about America.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pm.
Well if he followed his there is no just war then nobody would stop them.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
That's assuming that everyone in the world subscribed to that belief. Is that the case?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pmThey are. They have the presidency.
Comment by Republic666ans are evil
That just shows how out of touch libs are. Comparing the president to Hitler does a huge dis-service to everybody involved in the Holocaust.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pmWell if he followed his there is no just war then nobody would stop them.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
You think that Hitler made war against Europe just to kill jews, right? Behing every war there is an economic motive, religion and racism is just the trigger to get the supoport from the ignorant masses, just like the Arian myth that Hitler sold to the German people. Hitler made war to Europe because Volkswagen and other big German corporations wanted to expand their markets...by invading countries. Japan and China are flooding their products without invading any country, a more efficient way than what Hitler thought.
Hitler minions, soldiers, the German population REALLY thought that doing an ethnic cleansing was a good thing, a Christian duty against greedy evil non-Christian jews. Just like the US is selling the war to its population saying that Islam wants to take over the world, therefore it is ok to wipe them off. Same thing, different governments. This is mankind. Arent you proud?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:16 pm"Do you actually think that they knew right away we were under attack, even before the second plane crashed?"
p.d.b.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pmThat’s the problem with pacifists, they can’t understand that there are bad people that want to kill them.
And the problem with warmongers is that to them, everything is a battle.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:17 pmThat’s the problem with pacifists, they can’t understand that there are bad people that want to kill them.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
Thats the problem with you, war mongers. You think, we pacifists cant kick ass. Remember the left has endured pretty heavy sh*t. Dont f*ck with us.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmThat’s assuming that everyone in the world subscribed to that belief. Is that the case?
Comment by bob's your uncle
Doesn't matter, if they didn't he killed them.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pmThat just shows how out of touch libs are.
Yes. We're "out of touch" with the voters who drove your kind into the sea, you loser.
Comparing the president to Hitler does a huge dis-service to everybody involved in the Holocaust.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
Yes, I'm sure that members of the SS would hate being compared to Bush's Keystone Cops administration.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:18 pm.
Republican philosophy:
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself."
'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'" - Bush senior adviser.
They don't care about being true to their word.
The say whatever is expedient.
They care about now - and keeping you off-balance.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pmMental,
Dubya does a diservice by creating a new holocaust, a muslim holocaust.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:19 pmChief of Staff Andrew Card came over and whispered in Bush's ear, "A second plane hit the second tower. America is under attack."
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
May 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmThat’s the problem with pacifists, they can’t understand that there are bad people that want to kill them.
That's the problem with Republicans. They think that everyone who wasn't stupid enough to fall for their phony little case for war with Iraq is a "pacifist."
But you can keep arguing with your strawman, since that's all a conservative is up for.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pm.
You think that Hitler made war against Europe just to kill jews, right? Behing every war there is an economic motive, religion and racism is just the trigger to get the supoport from the ignorant masses, just like the Arian myth that Hitler sold to the German people. Hitler made war to Europe because Volkswagen and other big German corporations wanted to expand their markets…by invading countries. Japan and China are flooding their products without invading any country, a more efficient way than what Hitler thought.
Hitler minions, soldiers, the German population REALLY thought that doing an ethnic cleansing was a good thing, a Christian duty against greedy evil non-Christian jews. Just like the US is selling the war to its population saying that Islam wants to take over the world, therefore it is ok to wipe them off. Same thing, different governments. This is mankind. Arent you proud?
Comment by Juan C
I dont't dispute that, but if we didn't stand up to him that would have continued and continued. It was just for us to take him out and wage war against Nazi Germany and Japan.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:20 pmThats the problem with you, war mongers. You think, we pacifists cant kick ass. Remember the left has endured pretty heavy sh*t. Dont f*ck with us.
Comment by Juan C
But no war is just so you wouldn't be a real pacifist if you did anyting about it. Hypocrisy anybody?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:21 pmThat’s the problem with Republicans. They think that everyone who wasn’t stupid enough to fall for their phony little case for war with Iraq is a “pacifist.â€
But you can keep arguing with your strawman, since that’s all a conservative is up for.
.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
Juan said that "There are no succesful wars, there are no humanitarian wars (as Kosovo was sold), there are no just wars (as WWII is sold)." I was referring to him only on this.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:22 pmMental,
Dubya does a diservice by creating a new holocaust, a muslim holocaust.
Comment by Republic666ans are evil
When you say things like that, it does nothing more than make you look like a loon.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:23 pmIt’s already been documented that Chief of Staff Andrew Card told Bush that “America is under attack†on 9/11/01. Sheesh, are you just coming out of a coma?
Comment by Republicans are the Fear and Smear Party
If you give me a reputable link I will admit I was wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmBut no war is just so you wouldn’t be a real pacifist if you did anyting about it. Hypocrisy anybody? Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
What, you think using *words* is the same thing as murdering people? And you think OTHERS have a mental disorder? BAHAHAHA, pure projection CHILD!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmDoesn’t matter, if they didn’t he killed them.
So are you saying that Hitler killed everyone in the world who didn't agree with him?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:24 pmYes. We’re “out of touch†with the voters who drove your kind into the sea, you loser.
Comment by Grand Moff Texan
You won a single mid-term election don't start dancing in the streets just yet.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pmI dont’t dispute that, but if we didn’t stand up to him that would have continued and continued. It was just for us to take him out and wage war against Nazi Germany and Japan. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 1:20 pm
Actually they waged war against us, we merely defended ourselves - the opposite of Iraq. Where we waged war, and they defended themselves.
Imagine that? You really should up your meds, child, you're not just a lunatic, you're a st*pid lunatic!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:25 pmit's not just Bush... a lot of Republicants who pushed Clinton for timetables are the same ones who are questioning the patriotism and mettle of Iraq war critics... they need to be reminded directly... like by calls and letters to their office...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmComparing the president to Hitler does a huge dis-service to everybody involved in the Holocaust.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
Yes, I’m sure that members of the SS would hate being compared to Bush’s Keystone Cops administration.
. Comment by Grand Moff Texan — May 1, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Yeah, no kidding, it's actually an insult to Hitler! At least his government was *competent*! George and his men, are like the r*t*rded inbred cousins that they left home, taking over!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pmliberalism=mental disorder @ 12:47 pm: "Don’t remember comparing Iraq to WWII, can you show where I did that?"
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:57 pm: "Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted..."
Dude, just take your meds. You're the best argument against yourself today.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmIf you give me a reputable link I will admit I was wrong.
And what constitutes a "reputable" link for you?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pmThank you VVGFU. Sometimes people seem to forget that both Germany and Japan formally declared war on us.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmYou won a single mid-term election don’t start dancing in the streets just yet.
I don't see Republicans lining up to do the conga either.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmComment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Geez, I love this site. It's freaks-on-parade here. The bumbling intellectual impotence of the koolaid drinkers is a spectacle to behold, and it convinces me of their inevitable demise.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:28 pmActually they waged war against us, we merely defended ourselves - the opposite of Iraq. Where we waged war, and they defended themselves.
Imagine that? You really should up your meds, child, you’re not just a lunatic, you’re a st*pid lunatic!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Ask Juan if he believes your account of how WWII went?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pmYou won a single mid-term election don’t start dancing in the streets just yet. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
You say *won*? As in the only time in decades where the winning party didn't lose a single seat? Is that what you mean by *won*?
Or would you be referring to the loss in the numbers of registered Republicans, while there's an increase in Democrats? Or would you be referring to the demographic and polling trends which say you've shot your wad as a political movement?
Sorry, child, but your mental disorder causes you to be unable to see politics as it truly exists. Your *wave* of conservatism has left you high, dry, and probably bankrupt if you're as bad with your *money* decisions, as you are with your political ones!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pmBush the Flipflopper in action:
2003:Mission Accomplished!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm2007: Mission Not Accomplished but soon, very soon! Just give me some more of the people's money.
You won a single mid-term election don’t start dancing in the streets just yet.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
Watching FOX News keeps you safe from the reality you can't handle.
Voter ID was 50/50 in 2002. Now Democrats lead Republicans by a wide margin nationwide. Phony values issues are losing traction in a big way. No new majority has ever taken power WITHOUT LOSING A SINGLE SEAT. And the Republicans themselves don't like their presidential candidates in 2008.
America just took a big healthy shit called you.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:29 pm.
Mental,
Wow, calling me a loon, what a comeback, really powerful stuff ya got there.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pmbut if we didn’t stand up to him that would have continued and continued. It was just for us to take him out and wage war against Nazi Germany and Japan.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
First, you didnt stand up. People in Europe did. Dont take victories for yourself. Russians won the war against Hitler, 20 million russians died in that war. There was no war in US soil, so spare me your vacous sense of pride. Stalingrad was the turning point in the war and not the "battle in Seattle".
Second, what do you think was the reaction of right wing groups in Austria, Poland, etc when they found out that Germany was about to invade? Do you think they freaked out? Come on...they were charmed by the idea of getting more power within the Nazi ranks. When Hitler entered Poland, there were almost no resistance, except from few, brave groups. The problem is that you just see consequences...talk about Hitler and Fatherland and blah, blah...what about the causes? The real causes of wars are economic based.
Same thing in Bosnia...oh, Milosevic is killing people...why is he doing that? Wasnt Milosevic a guy from the IMF? Why did the IMF support Milosevic in the first place? See? You just see evil guys popping out in the world and then you are fed with the moralist crap of your government´s propaganda about how good we are and how evil are the others. You are being talked like a children by your media, and you are fine with that.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:30 pmliberalism=mental disorder @ 12:47 pm: “Don’t remember comparing Iraq to WWII, can you show where I did that?â€
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:57 pm: “Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted…â€
Dude, just take your meds. You’re the best argument against yourself today.
Comment by Bluedog49
Great job you could work for think Progress, you are great at distorting facts. My second post you showed there was in response to Juan saying that WWII was not just. It had nothing to do with comparing Iraq to WWII. Nice try though.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:31 pmGeorge Bush is Adolph Hitler's "Roger Clinton".
Unfortunately, he's also Jeb Bush's, "George Bush"...
May 1st, 2007 at 1:32 pmJuan said that “There are no succesful wars, there are no humanitarian wars (as Kosovo was sold), there are no just wars (as WWII is sold).†I was referring to him only on this.
Yeah, he also said "You think, we pacifists cant kick ass. ... Dont f*ck with us."
Hate to break it to ya, but that's not a "pacifist." Look it up. One can be cynical of war (veterans are, civilian amateurs aren't) and still not be a "pacifist."
The economic reasons for WWII are well understood, just not in your trailer park, apparently.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pm.
#60: What I expected Idiot Boy to have done is excuse himself, leave the room, and begin assessing the situation and taking action. LIKE A REAL LEADER. Staying calm and collected only works if you've already DONE SOMETHING.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmAnd what constitutes a “reputable†link for you?
Comment by bob's your uncle
There are many-anything mainstream will do.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:33 pmSending in the troops should be our last option when it comes to establishing national security in countries abroad. Genocides like that in Sudan, and what happened in Somalia should never be allowed to happen again. Our soldiers are warriors, not peacekeepers. This is the primary reason why they have such a difficult time in un-warlike scenarios, like in Iraq. The enemy is not clearly defined as fighting goes on in the midst of everyday civilian life.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:34 pmAs a nation, in order to preserve our own security should help establish other secure nations, not by military means. Hunger and poverty are petri dishes for militants, terrorists, and sociopaths. Eliminating the growth sites for such terrible things would reduce the need for immediate military action. It would also, be less expensive and possibly even make money. As those who are impoverished move out of poverty and begin to develop all nations involved could begin to profit in a healthy, sustainable way.
It was a democrat that lead us into and thru WWII. A democrat built the strongest military might the world has ever seen.
It was the republicans that were the isolationists. In today's lingo that would be surrender monkeys.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pm"It was just for us to take him out and wage war against Nazi Germany."/ “Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted…â€
the war started in sept. '39; the u.s. did not declare war against germany until dec. '41.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmFirst, you didnt stand up. People in Europe did. Dont take victories for yourself. Russians won the war against Hitler, 20 million russians died in that war. There was no war in US soil, so spare me your vacous sense of pride. Stalingrad was the turning point in the war and not the “battle in Seattleâ€.
Yes the people of Europe made great sacrifices and stood up. However, the war was won because the U.S. got involved by sending their troops in harms way.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:35 pmliberalism=mental disorder @ 12:57 pm: “Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted…â€
Dude, just take your meds. You’re the best argument against yourself today.
Comment by Bluedog49
That's hilarious!!! What sort of moron claims "you haven't heard me make that comparison" then MAKES THE COMPARISON HIMSELF a few minutes later. Republicans=Morons
May 1st, 2007 at 1:36 pmTo bring the thread full circle, the Bushes supported Hitler, so those comparisons aren't exactly out of left field.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm.
OK, hold up here. Juan says the war is not just. You say, "I suppose you think WWII wasn't just either," or something like that.
In what universe is this not comparing Iraq to WWII? Face it, man. You're just not making sense.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmYou say *won*? As in the only time in decades where the winning party didn’t lose a single seat? Is that what you mean by *won*?
Or would you be referring to the loss in the numbers of registered Republicans, while there’s an increase in Democrats? Or would you be referring to the demographic and polling trends which say you’ve shot your wad as a political movement?
Sorry, child, but your mental disorder causes you to be unable to see politics as it truly exists. Your *wave* of conservatism has left you high, dry, and probably bankrupt if you’re as bad with your *money* decisions, as you are with your political ones!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
The republicans have controlled the house and senate since 1994 and the presidency since 2000. The dems have controlled the house and senate since 2006. We'll see over time if you are right.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pm#135. Bush has demonstrated that Republicans have no idea how to plan for or win a war. He's demonstrated it for the past four years over and over.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:37 pmIt was a democrat that lead us into and thru WWII. A democrat built the strongest military might the world has ever seen.
It was the republicans that were the isolationists. In today’s lingo that would be surrender monkeys.
Comment by hellinabucket
It was also a democrat that put people in "camps" because they were Japanease. What's your point?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:38 pmThat’s hilarious!!! What sort of moron claims “you haven’t heard me make that comparison†then MAKES THE COMPARISON HIMSELF a few minutes later. Republicans=Morons
Comment by And You Thought REAGAN Was Stupid
That was not a comparison. I replied to Juan saying that WWII was not just. Re-read it and you will see who the moron is.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:39 pmYour *wave* of conservatism has left you high, dry, and probably bankrupt if you’re as bad with your *money* decisions, as you are with your political ones!
Even the big corporate donors have defected to the Democrats. No one backs a loser, you know.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pm.
#138
BlueDog....If you look at posting#66, you will see that Juan himself says that World War II was not a just war:
"there are no just wars (as WWII is sold)."
May 1st, 2007 at 1:40 pmOK, hold up here. Juan says the war is not just. You say, “I suppose you think WWII wasn’t just either,†or something like that.
In what universe is this not comparing Iraq to WWII? Face it, man. You’re just not making sense.
Comment by Bluedog49
Actually here is exactly what was said.
"there are no just wars (as WWII is sold)"
Now learn to read, it might help your attempt here.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:41 pmA note to the troll's...This pacifists, know's very well there are evil people who want to kill us, we also know our own govt. is now controled by said evil people that want to kill us and any one else that want's to stop their total take over of world power..The world and america are now in the grip of a hand full of evil, greedy people with the sole purpose of increasing their power and bringing on a genocide with their end time's in mind.....To be uninformed and buying into the bush cabal makes you one of the evil and stupid...Your cubords are full of kool aid, wraped in scriptures by evil pedaphiles and our flag thrown over the top to disguise all the lies and deciets....You troll's and reich winged fundamentalists christian's have been made fool's of..By their own word's bush/ rove called all the relegious reich fundies and freak's..They won them support through lies....9/11 happened on this mindless parasites watch, he was warned, he knew and wanted to use this event to further their cause...By design or neglect bush/ rove/ cheney and all this cabal is at fault..
Get the hell off our thread unless you can offer something valed to post, stop flipping your stupid shit to people that are trying to save our country and the world...You are no better than the black water I dump out of my RV tank, indeed you all are black hearted little troll's.....Blessings to all but the troll's.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pm"Despite his past statements, Bush now refuses to apply the same standard to his war and smears those who want a similar timetable for Iraq."
Does this surprise you? George considers himself King and Kings only have to do what they want. They don't need to listen to their serfs. Kings know what is best for their kingdoms and if the serfs don't like it, too bad.
This man is a disgrace and needs to be impeached NOW!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:43 pmYes the people of Europe made great sacrifices and stood up. However, the war was won because the U.S. got involved by sending their troops in harms way.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
Thats debatable. Im not against the right of US to strike back after its COLONIES were attacked. However, the general population of the US didnt suffer the war in their streets. They suffered because their troops were overseas, but you didnt have to risk your life in order to fix a broken tank, like Russians did, for example. I agree that US was a great force against German and Japan, however in my opinion, you entered too late in Berlin and for no other reason than to stop the soviets for getting into Lisboa.
In any case, thats not the point. My point is how wars are sold. You are a war based economy. You need wars. Dems or Reps presidents need wars. You need to sell weapons, you need to reinforce totalitarian regimes so armed conflicts keep flowing. It is so evident that it is almost a joke if there werent so many innocents dying. There are no just wars, cuz only corporations win.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pmHe complains about a rough comparison as if conservatives haven't tried to compare the current war to WWII.
Then, he makes the same rough comparison.
Then, he maintains that he never made the rough comparison.
Yep, that's our Bush cultist. So confused that he doesn't need any of us to look stupid. He accomplishes that all by himself. Contratulations, Bush cultist!
May 1st, 2007 at 1:44 pmBluedog, yes. For me there are no just wars. It´s ok of you want to debunk me. Im used to that. :)
May 1st, 2007 at 1:45 pmExley, are you also going to argue that conservatives haven't tried to compare Iraq to WWII???!!! Don't go there. You'll just make a fool out of yourself like our beloved Bush cultist here. We know how to "google" and we still have memories.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pmIt was also a democrat that put people in “camps†because they were Japanease [sic]
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
And the Reich-wingers agreed with it. What's your point?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:46 pmRoger, Roger "I can only assume you were all against Clinton when he wasn’t providing an exist strategy………"
Excuse me, but how long were we in Kosovo? How many of our military were killed? How many innocent bystanders were killed?
There is a huge difference between Kosovo and Iraq. People with small minds like you can't see things like that. You lack critical thinking skills.
If we had been in Kosovo for over 4 years and had seen over 3,300 of our men and women killed and over 500,000 civilians killed, I certainly would have been for a withdrawl. But, Clinton would have withdrawn our troops way before we ever got the the place where we are now in Iraq.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pmBlueDog,
You are missing the point (a not-unfamiliar action with you)...It is not I who have compared Iraq to World War II here, but Juan, who initiated the topic by saying that both World War II and Iraq were equally unjust.
Do you agree with Juan that World War II was not a just war?
May 1st, 2007 at 1:51 pmHa ha ha.
What cracks me up is that Exley is challenging another blogger for the quotes of another blogger, after he has been WRONG about WMDs, Al-Qaeda/Hussein, OBL, etc...
Come on, Ex. You have zero credibility and even less moral stance.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:56 pmHe complains about a rough comparison as if conservatives haven’t tried to compare the current war to WWII.
Then, he makes the same rough comparison.
Then, he maintains that he never made the rough comparison.
Yep, that’s our Bush cultist. So confused that he doesn’t need any of us to look stupid. He accomplishes that all by himself. Contratulations, Bush cultist!
Comment by Bluedog49
What is crazy is that you have been shown by two people the quotes made by Juan and then Juan replied saying that he does believe that WWII was not just, but you can't admit you were wrong. You are looking a lot like Bush yourself.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:57 pmHa ha ha.
What cracks me up is that Exley is challenging another blogger for the quotes of another blogger, after he has been WRONG about WMDs, Al-Qaeda/Hussein, OBL, etc…
Come on, Ex. You have zero credibility and even less moral stance.
Comment by Juan C
Looks like Bluedog has lost all credibility himself here.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:58 pmAnd the Reich-wingers agreed with it. What’s your point?
Comment by Dr. Matt
Just pointing out hypocrisy.
May 1st, 2007 at 1:59 pmLooks like Bluedog has lost all credibility himself here.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
With that moniker, I dont think you should be saying that.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:01 pmJuan is feeling very defensive here because he has been called out onhis hypocrisy. A few days ago he said Iraqi militants killing U.S. military personnel was "justified," but now he is trying to portray himself as some type of sensitive pacifist who decries all war and injustice.
So, to sum up Juan's position:
Allied campaigns in World War II? NOT justified.
Iraqi militants killing U.S. soldiers: Justified.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pmIf we had been in Kosovo for over 4 years and had seen over 3,300 of our men and women killed and over 500,000 civilians killed, I certainly would have been for a withdrawl. But, Clinton would have withdrawn our troops way before we ever got the the place where we are now in Iraq.
Noone ever sets a standard before starting something like this. What is the acceptable cost (In lives and money) for a free Iraq? Darfur genocide stopping? Haiti? Getting Osama Bin Laden? etc?
At what point is it no longer worth it? Should they have walked into Iraq and said, as soon as you kill our 3000th soldier we are leaving so don't do it?
Personally I say screw them all, let everyone else play for awhile, but I am a cold heartless person.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:02 pmMAF54
Actually, what he should have done was go straight to the site of the attack. Instead, he gave a tough talk speech and promptly hid in a bunker.
Meanwhile the rightwing loves to call Jimmy Carter, who knowing the risks went to 3 Mile Island as the nuclear reactor was melting down, a coward.
liberalism=mental disorder
Did the Poles, the gypsies, the gays, the leftwingers or the Jews at the end of WWII get justice?
Did the allies set up death camps so that the Germans, could suffer the same fate that they meeted out on others? Were German children used for scientific experiments, and were the straight, rightwing Germans who bought everything Hilter was selling, get thrown en masse into gas ovens along with their infants?
Did the Japanese have to send their women over to China to be forced into prostitution, were Chinese soldiers allowed to rape a Japanese city and name a recipe for cooking duck after the event?
Would you accept any of this had it happened?
Then don't talk about justice in conjunction to WWII. There was no justice there, there was mercy, there was pragmatism, there was horror and there was humanity, but there was no justice in WWII.
Oh, and those who are quick to preach war, are slow to join one so far as I can see. What is your rank in the military mental?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:03 pmAllied campaigns in World War II? NOT justified.
Iraqi militants killing U.S. soldiers: Justified.
Comment by Exley — May 1, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
Let me fix it for you, since you seem to have a crush on me:
Killing civilians = not justified
Killing invading forces = justified.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:07 pmOK, let's have another review:
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:47 pm: “Don’t remember comparing Iraq to WWII, can you show where I did that?â€
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:57 pm: “Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wanted…â€
Bush cultist, I'll repeat what I posted to Exley: do you really want us to start looking for examples of conservatives comparing Iraq to WWII? Because if you want to get into that, you're going to be embarrassed.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:10 pmWWII WAS a "just war". We had to defend ourselves from Hitler and Tojo.
Afghanistan WOULD HAVE BEEN a just war, but we decided that attacking Iraq was MORE IMPORTANT than finding Bin Laden, the 9/11 MASTERMIND.
Churches:
Catholic (after Bush met with Pope JPII), Jeb's church: NOT JUST
Methodist, MORON 43's church: NOT JUST
Episcopal, TRAITOR 41's church: NOT JUST
Jimmy Carter, BAPTIST PREACHER: NOT JUST
Jerry Falwell, DEMENTED Right-wing evangelist: JUST
The NOT JUST's have it...
May 1st, 2007 at 2:11 pmLooks like Bluedog has lost all credibility himself here.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
You posted agreeing with MAF54, someone using pedophile Matt Foley's moniker and you talk about others losing credibility
You republiscum pedophile supporters are really funny, in a sick demented way.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmAs if you had any credibility at all to begin with..... LMAO
There can be no doubt that Bush is a lying sack of shit.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:12 pmBlueDog, I am sincerely baffled as to your point. I have nowhere here claimed that some people have not tried to compare World War II to Iraq.
My only posting on this topic came when I corrected you after you missed the fact that Juan had not said World War II not a just war.
As you now see, Juan, did indeed say that World War II was not a just war.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:15 pmONE MORE THING:
Happy "Mission Accomplished" Day, my Nazi followers.
I need YOU to DIE for MY LIES. If you LOVE your FUHRER, go to Iraq!!!
Schnell!!!
See you in hell when you DIE for my LIES (cause I'LL be THERE),
Mr. Bush
May 1st, 2007 at 2:19 pmMURDEROUS WAR CRIMINAL
COXUCKER PUNK TRAITOR TO THE USA (TM--BushCrimeCo.)
Ok, I have to watch Liverpool-Chelsea.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:21 pmSee you later. Be nice...
Exley
But it wasn't just. Hitler declared an unjust war on, well, everyone.
While the allied side of the war was justified via self-preservation, the war itself was not.
For it to qualify as a just war, the reason for starting it has to be just. Germany was not justified in attacking Poland, particularly in light of a treaty Hitler had with Poland to specifically not do that. Japan, was not justified in its attack on Pearl Harbour, and when Hitler consequently sided with Japan in that war, he was unjustified in declaring war on America - which up until that point was neutral.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:26 pmOkay, Juan, you are making progress....Now that you have retreated from you statement that World War II was not a just war, do you also retreat from your statement on the other thread that killing Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, would NOT be justified?
I hope so, because, quite frankly, you are making no sense today and truly floundering. You say that killing civilains in war-time in not justified, yet on the other thread you claim that killing al-Masri, who is responsible for targeting and killing more Iraqi civilains over the past 10 months than anyone else, would not be justified.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:29 pmBruce,
Would you be more comfortable in saying that the Allied campaign against Hitler and the Axis was a "just campaign?"
May 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pmOh, and those who are quick to preach war, are slow to join one so far as I can see. What is your rank in the military mental?
-Comment by Bruce Gorton
Well said, Bruce. I believe our mentally deranged troll already admitted he / she had never served. Along with 98% of all the other whiners supporting a criminal cabal. They love to piss & moan about how big Americans they are, but when the rubber meets the road, they're always 'busy with other things'.
Chickenhawkshits.
Yes, I'm a Vet & proud of it.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pmWhat's your excuse today, mental?
So please write to your senators, representatives, governors, state representatives, and mayors in support of impeachment! Can we get the grass roots steamroller moving along?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:34 pmBack on topic - Bosnia was a tad different than Iraq TP, but don't confuse yourselves with fact based parallels.
Bosnia was a humanitarian effort to protect MUSLIMS from slaughter. (It is interesting that the folks who promote ethnic "pride" and divisivness ARE shocked when slaughter takes place!) ONCE again, TP grasps for comparisons and comes up short.
And then we had the UN skirting the sanctions and "cease fire" agreements Saddam signed in 1991. The unholy UN contributed strongly to the slaughter of Iraqis and the starvation of so may children while Saddam siphoned cash and the UN winked.
Tooodles...........
May 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pmwho is responsible for targeting and killing more Iraqi civilains over the past 10 months than anyone else, would not be justified.
Comment by Exley — May 1, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Just one more. I never said the death of that guy, (IF HE IS A TERRORIST, cuz we all know we cant trust anymore what the US military says after Tillman, the other girl, Abu Ghraib, WMDs, you get my point, right?) wasnt justified. Please, go back and read. What I express was my disgust for somebody who GETS HAPPY by the killing of ANY MAN. It could be justified to kill a US troop by an Iraqi, but just SOCIOPATHS feels any sense of happiness by doing it. Are you still a Christian? You are doing a lousy job, you know?
May 1st, 2007 at 2:40 pmBush is hell bent for leather. I like that one. He would probably go on a date with Rob Halford too.
May 1st, 2007 at 2:44 pmBut Juan,
You celebrated when you heard Pinochet had died:
Pinochet is dead.
Lets all have a big chilean glassof wine. Salud!
Comment by Juan C — December 11, 2006 @ 9:27 am
May 1st, 2007 at 2:47 pmBush in 2004: "Like the Second World War, our present conflict began with a ruthless surprise attack on the United States. We will not forget that treachery, and we will accept nothing less than victory over the enemy."
May 1st, 2007 at 2:59 pmExley, FYI: Celebrating the death of a murderous dictator is not the same as believing there are just wars.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pmBush cultist, I’ll repeat what I posted to Exley: do you really want us to start looking for examples of conservatives comparing Iraq to WWII? Because if you want to get into that, you’re going to be embarrassed.
Comment by Bluedog49
I don't care what other conservatives have said. I don't speak for them. I myself did not make the comparison. And you know that.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:03 pmOf course he would. Like Gannon Halford is a power top, just like Bush wants.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:08 pmBack on topic - Bosnia was a tad different than Iraq TP, but don’t confuse yourselves with fact based parallels. Comment by valiant venus — May 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Yeah, the difference was a commander in chief that was competent.
Bosnia was a humanitarian effort to protect MUSLIMS from slaughter. Comment by valiant venus — May 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Really? How is that different from the humanitarian effort to protect MUSLIMS from slaughter by Saddam? After all, that's one of the most commonly cited reasons for invading Iraq? Or do you just walk away from that reason when it's *convenient*?
(It is interesting that the folks who promote ethnic “pride†and divisivness ARE shocked when slaughter takes place!) ONCE again, TP grasps for comparisons and comes up short. Comment by valiant venus — May 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Says the Jewish girl, with her ethnic pride, and hatred for Arabs. ONCE AGAIN, your grasps for a lack of comparison comes up short.
And then we had the UN skirting the sanctions and “cease fire†agreements Saddam signed in 1991. Comment by valiant venus — May 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Say what? You're a st*pid c*nt. Never happened.
The unholy UN contributed strongly to the slaughter of Iraqis and the starvation of so may children while Saddam siphoned cash and the UN winked. Tooodles……….. Comment by valiant venus — May 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
Really? You mean like all of the GOP congress people that were saying we should up the sanctions? Or that they didn't care about the dead children, as it would bring about a *revolution*? Is that the *winking* you were referring to?
Just before you said we were involved in Bosnia, because of the humanitarian situation - yet here you say our reason for invading Iraq is humanitarian?
Thanks for drawing a *great* comparison, and showing everyone what a st*pid c*nt you are.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:09 pmNow Bluedog, here is an accurate timeline. See how you left out the one in the middle?
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:47 pm: “Don’t remember comparing Iraq to WWII, can you show where I did that?â€
Juan C @ 12:51 pm "Sorry. There are no succesful wars, there are no humanitarian wars (as Kosovo was sold), there are no just wars (as WWII is sold)."
liberalism=mental disorder @ 12:57 pm: “Since in your mind then WWII was not just, we should have allowed Hitler to do whatever he wants"
May 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pmI don’t care what other conservatives have said. I don’t speak for them. I myself did not make the comparison. And you know that. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
And you do a heck of a job speaking for yourself. But this is a *political* blog, what you speak for yourself about, isn't relevant - child. Only what your *politicians* say is relevant. If you weren't so st*pid, and such a cultist, you'd know that.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm#181, BlueDog, Re: Pinochet
Juan and I are discussing a separate subject there (not the "just war" debate). He said on another thread that it is "disgusting" to be glad that the leader of Al Qaeda might be dead and that it is never acceptable to be happy to hear that someone has died. I was simply pointing out his inconsistency.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:10 pm"PLEASE CALL Nancy Pelosi's office right now. Here's the deal as forwarded to me:
House Speaker Pelosi's office is taking calls voting for Impeachment of Bush/Cheney at 202-225-0100.
Folks, each of you who have been wanting Impeachment, need to commit right now to ask at least 10 others to call and ask each person to commit to asking 10 others to call and so on. It needs to happen fast and NOW. Let's BLITZKREIG the Speaker's office with demands for Impeachment of Bush AND Cheney.
Please make a call, and thanks so very much."
May 1st, 2007 at 3:13 pmAnd you do a heck of a job speaking for yourself. But this is a *political* blog, what you speak for yourself about, isn’t relevant - child. Only what your *politicians* say is relevant. If you weren’t so st*pid, and such a cultist, you’d know that.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
My politicians? I am not a registered republican and since there are very few true conservatives in public office, then I guess I have to speak for myself. I love that you call me a cultist, just after saying speaking for myself isn't relevent? Isn't that the definition of a cultist?
In political blogs people speak for themselves and debate issues that they agree with. Do you agree with everything democrats say and do?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:15 pmI don’t care what other conservatives have said. I don’t speak for them. I myself did not make the comparison. And you know that.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
I can conveniently avoid be associated with other idiot conservatives when it suits my purpose.
Comment by republicans=child molesters — May 1, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
The fact is that you cheered on this war that has led to hundreds of thousands of dead people. And you stand here now making apologies for the man who deceitfully led us down this path. You are truly pathetic!!
May 1st, 2007 at 3:21 pmI hate the man as much as the next guy, but even I'll give him an allowance for changing his mind over the course of eight years and a presidency.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:22 pmMy politicians? I am not a registered republican and since there are very few true conservatives in public office, then I guess I have to speak for myself. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Republicans are the *conservative* party, they're your party whether you admit it or not. You know, delusional inability to face reality is a sure sign you're mentally deranged.
I love that you call me a cultist, just after saying speaking for myself isn’t relevent? Isn’t that the definition of a cultist? Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
You aren't speaking for yourself, you're defending those *republicans* you claim you aren't one of. That's a cultist.
In political blogs people speak for themselves and debate issues that they agree with. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Actually in political blogs, conservatives tend to speak for their movement, and in your case, you typically defend the actions of your fellow republicans. So no, you don't speak for yourself, you speak for "conservatism".
Do you agree with everything democrats say and do? Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
So you're saying I'm not a democrat, if I don't agree with every action that a fellow democrat does? That explains how you can *pretend* you're not a republican Jake*ss.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:24 pmHe said on another thread that it is “disgusting†to be glad that the leader of Al Qaeda might be dead and that it is never acceptable to be happy to hear that someone has died. I was simply pointing out his inconsistency. Comment by Exley — May 1, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Celebrating the natural death of someone, and hoping they are/were killed isn't the same thing. Now is it SON? Or maybe in your twisted, hate filled murderous world they are? Wow, you're one f*cked up piece of sh*t.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:26 pmOh boy, here we go with the "I am a registered Independent" bullsh!t again.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:35 pm.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pmDO ANY REPUBLICAN POLICES ACTUALLY WORK? BUSH CERTAINLY HASN'T DEMONSTRATED IT EVEN ONCE.
.
Republicans are the *conservative* party, they’re your party whether you admit it or not. You know, delusional inability to face reality is a sure sign you’re mentally deranged.
They may champion themselves that way, but their spending shows differently.
You aren’t speaking for yourself, you’re defending those *republicans* you claim you aren’t one of. That’s a cultist.
I am defending what I think is right. I can list the things that I disagree with that they have done if you would like.
Actually in political blogs, conservatives tend to speak for their movement, and in your case, you typically defend the actions of your fellow republicans. So no, you don’t speak for yourself, you speak for “conservatismâ€.
Wrong again. I am not defending any actions. I am defending what I believe is right. As I said before most republicans are not true conservatives so they cannot speak for me. You really need to stop looking at things as black and white us against them and follow whatever your own ideals are.
So you’re saying I’m not a democrat, if I don’t agree with every action that a fellow democrat does? That explains how you can *pretend* you’re not a republican Jake*ss.
That is not what I am saying at all. It was to show that even though I am a conservative all conservatives/republicans don't speak for me which you said they did. You are a democrat, but I don't think all democrats in office speak for you.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pmOh boy, here we go with the “I am a registered Independent†bullsh!t again.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I prefer conservative independent.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:37 pmAnd how many American deaths were there in Kosovo?
I believe there was only 1. And I believe it was due to a vehicle accident...am I correct on this?
May 1st, 2007 at 3:39 pmI prefer conservative independent.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Yet you *behave* as a republican cultist. A rose by any other name, smells like a sh*t for brains republican.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:40 pmGreat post Sharon. You go girl.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:41 pmYet you *behave* as a republican cultist. A rose by any other name, smells like a sh*t for brains republican.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
You can see that however you want, as I said before I could list the ways republicans have let me down in the last 6 years if you would like. I behave as somebody that follows his ideals, not because people have an (R) next to their name, but because it is what I believe.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:44 pmThey may champion themselves that way, but their spending shows differently. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Conservatives ALWAYS behave differently than what they say, Haggard. It's the pardox of conservatism. We're ALL sure you're no different, hypocrite.
I am defending what I think is right. I can list the things that I disagree with that they have done if you would like. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Yeah, sure you are.... Sorry, but your actions disprove this *theory*.
Wrong again. I am not defending any actions. I am defending what I believe is right. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Yeah, the actions of Conservatives. You really don't understand english very well, do you child?
As I said before most republicans are not true conservatives so they cannot speak for me. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Sure they do. They speak for *conservatism*, and you defend them an their actions by smearing liberals with your tagline.
You really need to stop looking at things as black and white us against them and follow whatever your own ideals are. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Says the lunatic, that calls liberalism a mental disorder! True cultist!
That is not what I am saying at all. It was to show that even though I am a conservative all conservatives/republicans don’t speak for me which you said they did. You are a democrat, but I don’t think all democrats in office speak for you. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
Typical wingNUT doublespeak.
What you're saying is that liberalism is a mental disorder, and that conservative politicians fail conservatism, not that conservatism is what's a failure. Spoken as a true cultist.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:45 pmOh boy, here we go with the “I am a registered Independent†bullsh!t again. Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 1, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Yeah, like the IndyNH poster during the last election, that was traced back to the GOP headquarters. Typical cultist b*llsh*t.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:46 pmYou can see that however you want, as I said before I could list the ways republicans have let me down in the last 6 years if you would like. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Please do. And please explain why this isn't a failure of *conservatism*, as opposed to *conservatives* that failed you?
I behave as somebody that follows his ideals, not because people have an (R) next to their name, but because it is what I believe. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
What if those *ideals* have been shown to be failures? When you continue to follow them, it makes you a *cultist* - child.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pmConservatives ALWAYS behave differently than what they say, Haggard. It’s the pardox of conservatism. We’re ALL sure you’re no different, hypocrite.
When you say things like always and never it shows that you are too blind to see anything truly.
Yeah, sure you are…. Sorry, but your actions disprove this *theory*.
Can you give examples
Says the lunatic, that calls liberalism a mental disorder! True cultist!
Obviously the name is a joke to get people's goat. I do however believe that liberals are so set on trying to be fair to everybody that they make thinkgs worse.
Typical wingNUT doublespeak.
What you’re saying is that liberalism is a mental disorder, and that conservative politicians fail conservatism, not that conservatism is what’s a failure. Spoken as a true cultist.
If Bush followed true conservative values, we would not have many of the problems we have now because of him.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:51 pmYet another republican troll that doesn't want to admit they are a republican. We know that it is a Karl Rove ploy to make it appear as if there are more independents and less republicans to try and skew the polling. But, that won't work here.
YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN TROLL. ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME. GO LIE SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU LYING LIAR.
May 1st, 2007 at 3:54 pmWell GWB probably thougt that pefore the PNAC-ers got his ears.
What a puppet!
May 1st, 2007 at 3:57 pmPlease do.
Here are a few things that I see differently on that Bush.
*Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility-George Bush clearly does not.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:02 pm*Personal liberties are high for conservatives-Not for George Bush
*Bush has done nothing for securing our borders
*Bush tried to sell our ports UAE, which recognized the Taliban as acting government in Afghanistan
*No child left behind shows that Bush is not against big government
YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN TROLL. ESPECIALLY WITH YOUR SCREEN NAME. GO LIE SOMEWHERE ELSE YOU LYING LIAR.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
If I were republican my screen name would be democrats=mental disorder.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pmWhat if those *ideals* have been shown to be failures? When you continue to follow them, it makes you a *cultist* - child.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
What ideals do you mean?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:04 pmconservative independent = monkey spanker
May 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhen you say things like always and never it shows that you are too blind to see anything truly. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
More projection, from the cultist.
Can you give examples Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Lets begin with your handle...
Obviously the name is a joke to get people’s goat. I do however believe that liberals are so set on trying to be fair to everybody that they make thinkgs worse. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
So you wish to *offend*, as opposed to *inform* and *debate* - which is what you *claim*? Yeah, no *contradiction* in that... More behaviors of a cultist. What you *believe* isn't really important - unless you can back it up. See, we're so intent on being fair, we even let a cultist like you post pretty much any b*llsh*t you want here. Who has then mental illness again?
If Bush followed true conservative values, we would not have many of the problems we have now because of him. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
Spoken like a true cultist. The cult members have failed you, not the cult itself...
May 1st, 2007 at 4:12 pmWhat ideals do you mean?
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Careful michael, your old style is surfacing as your mental illness forces you into a corner.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmIf I were republican my screen name would be democrats=mental disorder. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
You would? Disagree. Your fellow cultists begin with democrats=liberalism, so see, that's just another lie from the cultist...
May 1st, 2007 at 4:13 pmDumb fu*k, independents are moderates, not conservatives or liberals. You can lie to yourself, but not people that know.
You are a conservative republican. You are like a closeted gay that won't admit you like to suck a d!ck. In your case, it is Bush's d!ck.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:14 pmMore projection, from the cultist.
Obviously you are unable to have a rational discussion. Which I have repeatedly tried to do with you.
So you wish to *offend*, as opposed to *inform* and *debate* - which is what you *claim*? Yeah, no *contradiction* in that… More behaviors of a cultist. What you *believe* isn’t really important - unless you can back it up. See, we’re so intent on being fair, we even let a cultist like you post pretty much any b*llsh*t you want here. Who has then mental illness again?
Do you have a problem with the handles that say negative things about republicans? Of course you don't. I made mine up after seeing those as a joke-get over it.
Spoken like a true cultist. The cult members have failed you, not the cult itself…
Who is the one projecting now?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pmCareful michael, your old style is surfacing as your mental illness forces you into a corner.
Comment by
What are you talking about?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:16 pmHere are a few things that I see differently on that Bush. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm/em>
See, you can't even write that "here's where bush is a failure" - poor little deranged cultist.
*Conservatives believe in fiscal responsibility-George Bush clearly does not. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
B*llsh*t. Conservatives believe in corporate welfare, not societal welfare.
*Personal liberties are high for conservatives-Not for George Bush Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
B*llsh*t. Conservatives believe in corporate liberties, not individual ones - this has always been true.
*Bush has done nothing for securing our borders Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Sure he has, he's helped murder people with his nationalist zeal - as have people like you. Security does not equal nationalism Jake*ss.
*Bush tried to sell our ports UAE, which recognized the Taliban as acting government in Afghanistan Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
That's just the tip of the iceberg. It goes back to RayGun and the rest of the wingNUTS selling WMDs to Iraq, and training Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization, and before then overthrowing every democracy in the world that dared talk about "social" responsibility to their citizens.
*No child left behind shows that Bush is not against big government Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
That's what it took for you to realize this? BAHAHA, you're not very bright are you - cultist?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:17 pmDumb fu*k, independents are moderates, not conservatives or liberals. You can lie to yourself, but not people that know.
You are a conservative republican. You are like a closeted gay that won’t admit you like to suck a d!ck. In your case, it is Bush’s d!ck.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Why do you think Bush has a 29% approval rating? He lost touch with his conservative base. There are many conservative independents that are fed up with party politics. Just like there are liberals that don't consider themselves democrats because they are sick of corruption in Washington.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:18 pmConservatism is the failure.
Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatsim/totalitarianism laid out his wholly undemocratic and un-American argument by saying..
"The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honour to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such [...] men ought not to suffer oppression by the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they , either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule." Meaning that a government by the people was a joke!!!
Glad we could prove him wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:19 pmObviously you are unable to have a rational discussion. Which I have repeatedly tried to do with you. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
More projections. There's nothing rational about you or your posts.
Do you have a problem with the handles that say negative things about republicans? Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Negative things, or ones that claim they're incapable of having a discussion while pretending that's why you're here? Sorry child, but your house of cards is constructed on top of a strawman.
Of course you don’t. I made mine up after seeing those as a joke-get over it. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
So do you always begin your efforts to have a "rational-discussion" by making offensive jokes in your efforts? If so, it explains why you so woefully uninformed, and such a cultist.
Who is the one projecting now?
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
That would be you, as always, cultist.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:20 pmComment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Clearly you are unable to discuss anything rationally. Unfortunately anybody that disagrees with you is laced with profanities and insults. I actually feel sorry for you. When you are ready to have a grown up discussion with me, let me know. Otherwise...
May 1st, 2007 at 4:22 pmWhy do you think Bush has a 29% approval rating? He lost touch with his conservative base. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Actually the 29% is his conservative base - st*pid cultist. What he's lost touch with, is reality - so the majority of Americans that are not his base have abandoned him.
There are many conservative independents that are fed up with party politics. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Conservative independent? That's a funny term! There's nothing independent about conservatism!
Just like there are liberals that don’t consider themselves democrats because they are sick of corruption in Washington. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
BAHAHAH, st*pid idiot. If liberals don't consider themselves democrats, it isn't because of "corrupt democrats" - you're projecting again.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pmWhat are you talking about?
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
Please michael, as if you didn't know. We can all see it's you...
May 1st, 2007 at 4:23 pmOh but you still support him tooth and nail. That is what is wrong with you fu*king people. Your heads are so far up your ass, you can't hear or see what is in front of you. I have been saying on these board for years and years that "Bush is not a conservative and he is not a Christian" But you people come on here with stupid screen names like yours and WE WERE RIGHT. We said he isn't a conservative and you people said "You're just crazy liberals." Well, we were right and you were wrong again. YOU WERE WRONG.
I dare you to admit that I have been right about Bush for years. Let's see just how independent you are. Say you were right about Bush not being a conservative 7 years ago when he was running for president. Come on independent, you can do it. If you're a real man (or woman) you will admit you were wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:24 pmConservatism is the failure.
Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatsim/totalitarianism laid out his wholly undemocratic and un-American argument by saying..
“The occupation of a hairdresser or of a working tallow-chandler cannot be a matter of honour to any person - to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such […] men ought not to suffer oppression by the state, but the state suffers oppression if such as they , either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.†Meaning that a government by the people was a joke!!!
Glad we could prove him wrong.
Comment by Crump's Brother
I disagree with Burke here.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:26 pmI disagree with Burke here.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
Then you disagree with Conservatism. Have you ever considered that maybe you don't know what Conservatism is? Or maybe that you're just insane?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:28 pmliberalism,
is there a break in the conservative mantra. Are you the messiah of conservatism? (Kidding)
Why don't you tell us then what the 'modern' conservative movement is all about then.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:31 pmOh but you still support him tooth and nail. That is what is wrong with you fu*king people. Your heads are so far up your ass, you can’t hear or see what is in front of you. I have been saying on these board for years and years that “Bush is not a conservative and he is not a Christian†But you people come on here with stupid screen names like yours and WE WERE RIGHT. We said he isn’t a conservative and you people said “You’re just crazy liberals.†Well, we were right and you were wrong again. YOU WERE WRONG.
I dare you to admit that I have been right about Bush for years. Let’s see just how independent you are. Say you were right about Bush not being a conservative 7 years ago when he was running for president. Come on independent, you can do it. If you’re a real man (or woman) you will admit you were wrong.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
Did you not see the list I put of things I disagree Bush on? How could we have known 7 years ago that he was not a true conservative. He played his entire campaign up to conservatives. His record in Texas was conservative. I admit I was duped by him.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:32 pmThen you disagree with Conservatism. Have you ever considered that maybe you don’t know what Conservatism is? Or maybe that you’re just insane?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Disagreeing with one point by one man, does not mean I disagree with conservatism as a whole. Everything is black and white for you.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pmDid you not see the list I put of things I disagree Bush on? How could we have known 7 years ago that he was not a true conservative. He played his entire campaign up to conservatives. His record in Texas was conservative. I admit I was duped by him. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Why, we knew - how come you didn't? You say how could *you* have known, yet we all did.
So you admit - YOU WERE WRONG, and that we were SMARTER than you were - because we knew?
Just say it. Come on! Admit you were wrong, and that we were SMARTER than you were! Or are you too much of a coward to face the truth michael?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:37 pmDisagreeing with one point by one man, does not mean I disagree with conservatism as a whole. Everything is black and white for you.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Actually he represents the core of Republican values - you don't. So just because you think white is black and that only YOU understand what Conservatism is - doesn't make it so. It makes you insane.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:38 pmliberalism,
is there a break in the conservative mantra. Are you the messiah of conservatism? (Kidding)
Why don’t you tell us then what the ‘modern’ conservative movement is all about then.
Comment by Crump's Brother
I don't see it as modern conservatism. I see the basic principles-
Small government
May 1st, 2007 at 4:41 pmIndividual liberties
States rights
Traditional morality
Why, we knew - how come you didn’t? You say how could *you* have known, yet we all did.
So you admit - YOU WERE WRONG, and that we were SMARTER than you were - because we knew?
Just say it. Come on! Admit you were wrong, and that we were SMARTER than you were! Or are you too much of a coward to face the truth michael?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I would never say you are smarter than I. You say that you knew all along? You knew he wasn't conservative? I thought conservative was bad in your eyes?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pmYou still didn't admit that you were wrong and I was right.
How could we have known. The people here knew. I knew the minute that he announced he was running for president. You wanna know how? I didn't listen to the fu*king words coming out of his mouth. I already knew about this pile of sh!t a long time before. His loyalties run outside of the United States of America. He is in bed with our enemy.
But, you people just point fingers and called us unpatriotic and anti-American and said we just hated conservatives, etc. etc. and now you still don't have the balls to admit that you were wrong and I was right.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:43 pmActually he represents the core of Republican values - you don’t. So just because you think white is black and that only YOU understand what Conservatism is - doesn’t make it so. It makes you insane.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I'm done with you. You have no ability to discuss things rationally. All you can do is throw insults to back up your lack of substance.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:44 pmI don’t see it as modern conservatism. I see the basic principles-
Small government Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
That's not a conservative value. Conservatism is small government spending on *social* issues.
Individual liberties Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Not a Conservative value, corporate liberties are all you care about, that's why you're all about persecuting the poor, minorities, women and gays for your *religious* zeal.
States rights Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Not a Conservative value, but a ploy to avoid a national consensus. When states decide to do things you disagree with, you whine about national laws that usurp states rights. You're lying hypocrites.
Traditional morality
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
You mean traditional bigotry. Traditional morality includes polygamy, prohibiting divorce, and selling children off as slavery. Is that what you're calling for?
May 1st, 2007 at 4:45 pmYou still didn’t admit that you were wrong and I was right.
How could we have known. The people here knew. I knew the minute that he announced he was running for president. You wanna know how? I didn’t listen to the fu*king words coming out of his mouth. I already knew about this pile of sh!t a long time before. His loyalties run outside of the United States of America. He is in bed with our enemy.
But, you people just point fingers and called us unpatriotic and anti-American and said we just hated conservatives, etc. etc. and now you still don’t have the balls to admit that you were wrong and I was right.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
You knew he was not conservative? I won't say you were right, I will say I was wrong about him, but I don't know what you said about him before he was elected. If you said that he would increase the government, do nothing to secure our borders and spend like crazy I will say you were right.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmI’m done with you. You have no ability to discuss things rationally. All you can do is throw insults to back up your lack of substance.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
I'm quite rational - you just don't like my answers, because you're deranged.
When post something of *substance*, instead of whining about how Bush has failed conservatism - this post won't be so hypocritical and funny!
May 1st, 2007 at 4:46 pmBush never wanted any of these things. Never ever.
He said during his campaign that 'This would be easier if it was a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator.' He also said something similar the night he and Gore were waiting to see who won the election and he said it again shortly after that.
That isn't a whacky liberal conspiracy. Bush said that and he meant it. But, you are blinded by your hatred of liberals as is shown in your screen name to get it.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:47 pmYou still didn’t admit that you were wrong and I was right.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 1, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Didn't you know? Being a conservative means you never have to admit you were wrong, someone else was smarter, and that you failed. It's always someone else that failed you, so you don't have to be responsible. Bush says it's not his fault, the Iraqis failed him! Tenet failed him! No responsibility - no apologies.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pmPoor conservatism=anti-american doesn't believe in the constitutional provision to "promote the general welfare", instead s-he just wants to promote *its* own welfare, and f*ck the country! Yep, s-he's a conservative alright!
May 1st, 2007 at 4:49 pmHe said during his campaign that ‘This would be easier if it was a dictatorship, as long as I was the dictator.’ He also said something similar the night he and Gore were waiting to see who won the election and he said it again shortly after that.
That isn’t a whacky liberal conspiracy. Bush said that and he meant it. But, you are blinded by your hatred of liberals as is shown in your screen name to get it.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
That was clearly a joke. Anybody objective can see that.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pmYou knew he was not conservative? I won’t say you were right, I will say I was wrong about him, but I don’t know what you said about him before he was elected. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
Wow, you admit you were wrong? Be careful - lightening will strike you!
So you won't admit that the *liberals* that DID say those things about him were right? You just ignore ALL of the liberals that kept saying Bush is dangerous, he's a problem, he isn't who you think he is? You know when we were ALL trashing the theory of his "compassionate-conservatism"?
If you said that he would increase the government, do nothing to secure our borders and spend like crazy I will say you were right.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
We said he'd f*ck things up, and not deliver anything of substance to the country. We were right, you were wrong.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:52 pmSmall government
Individual liberties
States rights
Traditional morality
All things Bush ignored, while his syncophants cheered. The boat has sailed on this little fantasy. There isn't a single "conservative" principle that survived Bush's 9/11.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:54 pmThat was clearly a joke. Anybody objective can see that.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
That's the problem with you wingNUTS, a deranged sense of what "humor" is, as in you don't HAVE ONE. You think things like this are *jokes* - but they aren't. They're just more wingNUT statements that aren't really jokes at all. Like when Valiant Venus makes a joke about bombing Iran back to the stone age. She's not *joking*, she's sardonically attacking someone... It's mocking, it's crude, and it's the sign of a weak, small, and ineffective mind.
The *fact* that you found it either funny or a joke, is just more proof of your lunacy! People that are sane don't joke about these matters in this fashion.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:55 pmAll things Bush ignored, while his syncophants cheered. The boat has sailed on this little fantasy. There isn’t a single “conservative†principle that survived Bush’s 9/11.
Comment by barfly
I agree that he ignored them.
May 1st, 2007 at 4:56 pmI agree that he ignored them.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder
And the "conservatives" who made a stink about his policies? I remember Bill Buckley saying a few things, but otherwise, silence from the conservative movement. You had your chance to show that conservatism wasn't just a politically-opportunistic bunch of hypocrites four years ago, in the last mid-terms, but no, power was more important that conservative values. You squandered your vaunted conservatism for some transitory gains. Too bad.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:05 pmI agree that he ignored them.
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
How do you know he *ignored* them? Do you really believe he could get elected, and surround himself with so many wingNUTS and simply *ignore* those principles?
Wow, you wingNUTS really are delusional lap dogs, aren't you! No wonder he can get so many of you f*cking losers to vote every time on a platform entirely based on bigotry, racism and homophobia! You're idiots!
May 1st, 2007 at 5:06 pmThat’s the problem with you wingNUTS, a deranged sense of what “humor†is, as in you don’t HAVE ONE. You think things like this are *jokes* - but they aren’t. They’re just more wingNUT statements that aren’t really jokes at all. Like when Valiant Venus makes a joke about bombing Iran back to the stone age. She’s not *joking*, she’s sardonically attacking someone… It’s mocking, it’s crude, and it’s the sign of a weak, small, and ineffective mind.
The *fact* that you found it either funny or a joke, is just more proof of your lunacy! People that are sane don’t joke about these matters in this fashion.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
The above post is a prime example of me not taking my meds again. I always seem to project when I miss my dosage. The truth is that one of my personalities posted that and I wasn't watching him at the time. I really apologize for the post. It was wrong and was uncalled for. I don't know why I hate myself soooooo much.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:09 pmI’m done with you. You have no ability to discuss things rationally. All you can do is throw insults to back up your lack of substance. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 4:44 pm
See the problem is that we know you aren't kidding, and that you and your fellow INSULTING Conservatives are in fact completely insane wingNUTS.
So see, when you start calling political discourse *treason*, as Coulter, and Patterson do - we don't exactly see you as either *sane* or *intelligent* or *rational*. Can you see that - wingNUT?
May 1st, 2007 at 5:12 pmThe above post is a prime example of me not taking my meds again. I always seem to project when I miss my dosage. The truth is that one of my personalities posted that and I wasn’t watching him at the time. I really apologize for the post. It was wrong and was uncalled for. I don’t know why I hate myself soooooo much. Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 1, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
NameJacking - the act of the desperate and insane wingNUTS. Poor little michael - how sad and pathetic you truly are! A coward, a traitor, a liar and a fraud! Yep, you're a conservative alright!
May 1st, 2007 at 5:13 pmAnd see, that is the problem. It wasn't funny the first time somebody running for president said it, so it definitely wasn't funny the other tow times. But, what makes it really un-funnny is that Bush has made America a lot like a dictatorship.
Torture
Secret Prisons
Wire Tapping
Come on now there was nothing funny about that.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:16 pmNameJacking - the act of the desperate and insane wingNUTS. Poor little michael - how sad and pathetic you truly are! A coward, a traitor, a liar and a fraud! Yep, you’re a conservative alright!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I didn't do it, but it was funny. It certainly exlains a lot.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:24 pmAnd see, that is the problem. It wasn’t funny the first time somebody running for president said it, so it definitely wasn’t funny the other tow times. But, what makes it really un-funnny is that Bush has made America a lot like a dictatorship.
Torture
Secret Prisons
Wire Tapping
Come on now there was nothing funny about that.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I disagree with the way he has handled personal liberties with those things, but the things he has done pale in comparison to FDR and Lincoln in times of war.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pmBut, what makes it really un-funnny is that Bush has made America a lot like a dictatorship.
Torture
Secret Prisons
Wire Tapping
Come on now there was nothing funny about that.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — May 1, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
Those sound like traditional values to me. The same traditional values we "Liberal Democrats" fought to free us from with Europe... You know, when the Benedict Arnold(s) and the rest of the wingNUTs fled to Canada and Europe to free the tyranny of Liberal Secular Democracy!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pmThose sound like traditional values to me. The same traditional values we “Liberal Democrats†fought to free us from with Europe… You know, when the Benedict Arnold(s) and the rest of the wingNUTs fled to Canada and Europe to free the tyranny of Liberal Secular Democracy!!!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
You must be an American history major. In case you didn't sense it-that was complete SARCASM.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:30 pmYou do realize that you just repeated verbatim a republican talking point.
Lincoln and FDR did not okay torture, black prisons or wiretapping (would have been hard for Lincoln).
You are using the "well somebody did it too" excuse. It never worked for me when I was a kid in trouble, so I am not sure why you as a grown adult feels that is okay for the president.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:35 pmYou do realize that you just repeated verbatim a republican talking point.
Lincoln and FDR did not okay torture, black prisons or wiretapping (would have been hard for Lincoln).
You are using the “well somebody did it too†excuse. It never worked for me when I was a kid in trouble, so I am not sure why you as a grown adult feels that is okay for the president.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
You said that Bush brought us into a dictatorship, I pointed out that we have already been there.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:42 pmYou must be an American history major. In case you didn’t sense it-that was complete SARCASM. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:30 pm
What, because you don't know sh*t about history, you find it *funny* when someone does? You're right it is a funny post, but only because it makes you look like a complete Jake*ss.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:47 pmNameJacking - the act of the desperate and insane wingNUTS. Poor little michael - how sad and pathetic you truly are! A coward, a traitor, a liar and a fraud! Yep, you’re a conservative alright!
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I know it seems strange, but nobody jacked my name. It was one of my other personalities. We really need to learn to communicate better.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:48 pmI disagree with the way he has handled personal liberties with those things, but the things he has done pale in comparison to FDR and Lincoln in times of war. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
Yes, but we aren't a war - no country has declared war on us - Jake*ss. But just like most dictatorships, there's a trumped up reason to declare an emergency. The Germans used the same tactic in fearmongering the Jews...
You said that Bush brought us into a dictatorship, I pointed out that we have already been there. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
Actually that's not what he said - liar. He said Bush has made us look a "lot more like" a dictatorship.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:49 pmI did not say we are in a dictatorship. Now you are doing the black and white thing and putting words in my mouth.
I said Bush is trying to take us there. We aren't there yet and if real conservatives like you are willing to admit there mistake and band together with liberals like us (and you stopped using silly screen names like the one you have) we could stop this and keep it from happening again, but you guys don't like to admit you were wrong and we were right, so we are stuck with what we have and it is being left open for others, be they liberal or conservative, to do the same sh!t.
You gotta stop hating liberals for having a different view than you. We want what is best for the country and so do you. But, that won't happen if you continue to hate because some stupid pundit told you to.
Here I am trying to communicate with you and you are putting words in my mouth.
Stop for the good of the country.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:55 pmYes, but we aren’t a war - no country has declared war on us - Jake*ss. But just like most dictatorships, there’s a trumped up reason to declare an emergency. The Germans used the same tactic in fearmongering the Jews…
No but we were attacked by terrorists. Since Al Qaeda is not a nation (but more powerful than many) we cannot declare war on them. Just because war has not been declared it does not change the threat.
Actually that’s not what he said - liar. He said Bush has made us look a “lot more like†a dictatorship.
You added the word more there. Wonder why? Here is what he said.
May 1st, 2007 at 5:58 pm"America a lot like a dictatorship" you see the absence of the word more. Meaning we didn't look like a dictatorship before. Nice try.
Is there anything he didn't criticize Clinton for? What I would like to know is why aren't his hypocrisies highly publicized for all the American people to see?
May 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pmAnd why is Bill Clinton hanging around with the Bushes all things considered?
I did not say we are in a dictatorship. Now you are doing the black and white thing and putting words in my mouth.
I said Bush is trying to take us there. We aren’t there yet and if real conservatives like you are willing to admit there mistake and band together with liberals like us (and you stopped using silly screen names like the one you have) we could stop this and keep it from happening again, but you guys don’t like to admit you were wrong and we were right, so we are stuck with what we have and it is being left open for others, be they liberal or conservative, to do the same sh!t.
You gotta stop hating liberals for having a different view than you. We want what is best for the country and so do you. But, that won’t happen if you continue to hate because some stupid pundit told you to.
Here I am trying to communicate with you and you are putting words in my mouth.
Stop for the good of the country.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I apologize for mis-interpeting what you said. You did say we are looking a lot like a dictatorship. As for trying to comunicate with me. Here are things you have called me in this thread alone. Please spare me the moral high ground talk.
"YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN TROLL"
"Dumb fu*k"
"You are like a closeted gay that won’t admit you like to suck a d!ck"
"That is what is wrong with you fu*king people. Your heads are so far up your ass, you can’t hear or see what is in front of you"
May 1st, 2007 at 6:06 pmA different war
On a different Continent
In a different Century.
Posisbly would require different thinnking?
Neo-Con rhetoric is bad enough - ThinkProgress whould try a little harder to have something useful to say!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 6:07 pmLook, we started the thread the way we normally do. You throwing insults (the screen name you use is an insult in and of itself), then you started communicating, so I stopped with the insults (you are still using the same screen name) to have a debate.
I would much rather have a conversation with you than throw insults.
So, at this point, I leave it up to you. Would yo like to discuss our difference of opinion or do you want to throw insults?
May 1st, 2007 at 6:14 pmLook, we started the thread the way we normally do. You throwing insults (the screen name you use is an insult in and of itself), then you started communicating, so I stopped with the insults (you are still using the same screen name) to have a debate.
I would much rather have a conversation with you than throw insults.
So, at this point, I leave it up to you. Would yo like to discuss our difference of opinion or do you want to throw insults?
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I have no problem discussing the issues. As I said the name was a joke after seeing the anti-republican names. So I will go with this name from now on.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:20 pmI apologize for mis-interpeting what you said. You did say we are looking a lot like a dictatorship. As for trying to comunicate with me. Here are things you have called me in this thread alone. Please spare me the moral high ground talk.
“YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN TROLLâ€
“Dumb fu*kâ€
“You are like a closeted gay that won’t admit you like to suck a d!ckâ€
“That is what is wrong with you fu*king people. Your heads are so far up your ass, you can’t hear or see what is in front of youâ€
Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
And you still don't see how you brought this onto yourself, with your *joke* alias, and the b*llsh*t posts you put up? Yeah, the hypocrisy of wingNUT responsibility. We're totally responsible for this - right? *ssh*le.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:22 pmI have no problem discussing the issues. As I said the name was a joke after seeing the anti-republican names. So I will go with this name from now on. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Yet you claim your purpose here is to debate - do you believe the people posting anti-republican names (there aren't many of them) are the same as calling all liberals a mental illness?
You're an idiot.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:23 pmAnd you still don’t see how you brought this onto yourself, with your *joke* alias, and the b*llsh*t posts you put up? Yeah, the hypocrisy of wingNUT responsibility. We’re totally responsible for this - right? *ssh*le.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Yet you have no problem with the aliasas such as replicansthefearsmearparty, republic666ans. Just look at your name, clearly an attack at somebody named valientvenus who I have seen you spar with. Don't act above it. You attack everybody regardless of their name if you disagree with them.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:27 pmNo but we were attacked by terrorists. Since Al Qaeda is not a nation (but more powerful than many) we cannot declare war on them. Just because war has not been declared it does not change the threat. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Gang members kill many more people in the US than Al Qaeda has - are you saying we're at *war* with crime? Because that's what Al Qaeda is - a bunch of wingnut religious criminals.
Wars are between countries, criminal gangs - whether they're Islamic or Inner City are criminals. You don't declare war on criminals, you find ways to undermine their criminal enterprises. Fighting them with all out war often just creates more of them. I suggest you talk to law enforcement in places like LA that have been fighting gang warfare for the last 30 years, and ask them whether all out war against the gangs work.
You added the word more there. Wonder why? Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Because I still remember Ronald RayGun.
Here is what he said. “America a lot like a dictatorship†you see the absence of the word more. Meaning we didn’t look like a dictatorship before. Nice try. Comment by liberalism=mental disorder — May 1, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Actually that's not what it means. It doesn't mean there weren't aspects before, it means we now have most of the aspects. I still remember RayGun subverting the constitution, fighting wars illegally, selling weapons illegally, and acting much like a dictator in many of his behaviors. Georgie is just worse.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:28 pmYet you claim your purpose here is to debate - do you believe the people posting anti-republican names (there aren’t many of them) are the same as calling all liberals a mental illness?
You’re an idiot.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
I have changed the name, and if you look at the context of my posts, I don't attack people. You can either move on and have civilized conversations with me or not. It is up to you.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:29 pmOh and John M, I give you the same advice I give to most Republicans - buy a dictionary and an encyclopedia.
You can't declare war against criminals, or thugs - we are NOT AT WAR, you st*pid Jake*ss.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:30 pmI have changed the name, and if you look at the context of my posts, I don’t attack people. You can either move on and have civilized conversations with me or not. It is up to you. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
Show me you can have one. So far you've said nothing other than Bush hasn't lived up to your *conservative* ideals.
I hate to point it out to you, but your conservative ideals are basically England (US) 1776 - before the revolution. You're idealizing a time that led to the secular revolution that created this great nation - sigh. How sad.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:31 pmYet you have no problem with the aliasas such as replicansthefearsmearparty, republic666ans. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Actually, based on the last 6 years that's true - even by your own account - isn't it? After all, you say the republicans don't live up to your ideals of conservatism. So why so adamant about defending them?
Just look at your name, clearly an attack at somebody named valientvenus who I have seen you spar with. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Yes, a *person* who makes *jokes* about her fictitious dead baby better off being dead than a liberal. Like I said, you wacos get what you deserve in response.
Don’t act above it. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Above what? You claim you wanted to debate, I pointed out that coming to a progressive blog with your name doesn't indicate a desire or intention to debate. My slam at the Venomous Vapid Venison is an attack on her disgusting behavior - what the f*ck does it have to do with you?
You attack everybody regardless of their name if you disagree with them. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
I attack people that say st*pid things - which is usually people I disagree with. That's true. What's your point? So do you?
If you were so opposed to doing so, you wouldn't have come here with that st*pid name - hypocrite.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:35 pmSo tell me JohnM, what traditional morality do you believe the government should be in the business of enforcing - and how BIG do you think the government should get in supporting it? That can be awfully costly supporting the "Office of Virtue and Vice" - just ask the Taliban! It was a big part of their "small government strategy". You know you have lots in common with them. They believed in small government, traditional values, and the rights of the individual to follow those traditional values.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmOh and John M, I give you the same advice I give to most Republicans - buy a dictionary and an encyclopedia.
A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.
You can’t declare war against criminals, or thugs - we are NOT AT WAR, you st*pid Jake*ss.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
So do you believe that the civil war was a war? According to your definition how could a nation have a war against its self? "A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others."
We also were never at war during Vietnam, but tell that to the families that had loved ones die in the "conflict"
May 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmJohn M,
Okay then. That is a big step that I give you a lot of points for. I will apologize for the insults I threw earlier in the thread. I am glad we were able to come to a point where we can discuss rather than insult. For now, I need to go put some racks together. Talk to you soon.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:37 pmShow me you can have one. So far you’ve said nothing other than Bush hasn’t lived up to your *conservative* ideals.
Show me where I haven't unless of course I have been baited by you into your childish name-calling.
If you can stop with the insults I am more than willing to debate/argue with you.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:38 pmActually, based on the last 6 years that’s true - even by your own account - isn’t it? After all, you say the republicans don’t live up to your ideals of conservatism. So why so adamant about defending them
There is a difference between living up to my ideals and saying they are the devil or smear/fear party.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:39 pmJohn M,
Okay then. That is a big step that I give you a lot of points for. I will apologize for the insults I threw earlier in the thread. I am glad we were able to come to a point where we can discuss rather than insult. For now, I need to go put some racks together. Talk to you soon.
Comment by Spudge_Boy
I look forward to it.
May 1st, 2007 at 6:41 pmThere is a difference between living up to my ideals and saying they are the devil or smear/fear party. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
Yeah the difference is the last 6 years...
May 1st, 2007 at 6:47 pmSo do you believe that the civil war was a war? According to your definition how could a nation have a war against its self? “A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.â€
We also were never at war during Vietnam, but tell that to the families that had loved ones die in the “conflictâ€
Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Doesn't change the fact that the US has a legal definition for "WAR", as in when the nation is at war. The US military is engaged directly and indirectly in all sorts of peace keeping, police actions and engagements - but that does not mean we are at war with that country. In Vietnam, we were engaged in a major conflict that we didn't want to declare a war - largely because it didn't reach our soil, and by traditional standards wasn't a war. Cops die daily as well, son, and it's not a war either... Hate to inform you on how the world works - but you seem to need lots of help.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:01 pmDoesn’t change the fact that the US has a legal definition for “WARâ€, as in when the nation is at war. The US military is engaged directly and indirectly in all sorts of peace keeping, police actions and engagements - but that does not mean we are at war with that country. In Vietnam, we were engaged in a major conflict that we didn’t want to declare a war - largely because it didn’t reach our soil, and by traditional standards wasn’t a war. Cops die daily as well, son, and it’s not a war either… Hate to inform you on how the world works - but you seem to need lots of help.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
You are just playing sematics. There are explosions happening, rockets being launched and our military is there it has all the makeups of a war except it hasn't been declared. Getting hung up on the technical semantics is pointless.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:21 pmBush apparently changed his mind. Are we not allowed to change our minds anymore? This is despicable. Obama in '08!!!!!!
May 1st, 2007 at 8:04 pmYou are just playing sematics. There are explosions happening, rockets being launched and our military is there it has all the makeups of a war except it hasn’t been declared. Getting hung up on the technical semantics is pointless. Comment by John M — May 1, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
No actually I'm talking Constitutional law. You're playing semantics, and hung up on calling a police effort to catch a band of international criminals that would fit into any bond film as a reason to sh*t on the constitution. You're no different than brownshirts that were willing to give away their freedoms because of "Jew-Scare". Get a grip, child.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:16 pmKosovo intervention was a big mistake. Al Quaida and Muslim fighters were fighting on the front lines there...and we helped them out. What a bunch of morons we are. Milosovich was right to cleanse them.
May 1st, 2007 at 8:57 pmKosovo intervention was a big mistake. Al Quaida and Muslim fighters were fighting on the front lines there…and we helped them out. What a bunch of morons we are. Milosovich was right to cleanse them. Comment by Enzo Medici — May 1, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
B*llsh*t. Milosovich was a madman, and so are you - you hateful piece of lying sh*t.
May 1st, 2007 at 10:49 pmSo do you believe that the civil war was a war? According to your definition how could a nation have a war against its self? “A declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.â€
Oh dear...
Um... The Confederacy did form into something called the Confederate States of America. With a Constitution and a standing army and--
MY GAWD! It was a--a--NATION! And Congress declared war on them! OMFG! It was really a WAR!
As for Vietnam...
Theoretically (and the theory here was very sketchy), we were assisting South Vietnam prevent being overtaken by North Vietnam. We won't go into how America subverted international agreements that would have left this matter entirely up to the Vietnamese (Ho Chi Minh was pretty much guaranteed to trounce anyone else in a fair election). And let's not go into how we kinda looked for reasons every step of the way to "escalate" our efforts on behalf of those poor Vietnamese. Gulf of Tonkin, anyone? Is it not possible that most of our post WWII conflicts would not have escalated to the point they did if we hadn't resorted to military solutions, first, even seemingly innocent "interventions/peacekeeping" and then said, well, we're here, might as well put the mighty US military to use? We've done it too many times for it not to indicate a bad pattern of behavior.
Enzo:
If you want to go back and look for "blame" for Al Qaeda, look no further than Reagan. Really. You do know that he intentionally sought the most rabidly Muslim foot soldiers to fight against the Soviets. Right? He armed them, most generously. Had the CIA train them. And so forth. So, really, nice try with blaming Clinton for Al Qaeda. Doesn't work.
In the end, by supporting a monster like Milosevic, you're a very sick person to think it okay to exterminate people. Period.
May 1st, 2007 at 11:18 pmi can't believe no one else ion the media bothers to point out this complete contradiction. and i can't believe democrats aren't trotting out these quotes. is there video of bush making some similar comments about Kosovo, or it all just print? it would make a great commercial right now.
May 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 amSure, People, including presidents, change their mind. Often hundreds of millions of lives aren't at stake, and often there are good reasons, meaning: a reasonable person might accept those reasons. Well, there are a lot of reasonable people who no longer accept President Bush's reasons. Bush's reason: because setting a timeline would lead to chaos. Huh? Setting a timeline is required for every project, so that we can have benchmarks and measure progress against them. Without a timeline, there is no impetus for getting things done. We might as well piss away another several thousand US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives and billions and billions of tax dollars.
Personally, *I* think it's all about: "we can't leave! Me and my friends didn't get rich and powerful enough yet! We haven't stripped all of the Constitution yet!"
*sigh*
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:28 amFor those who are wondering what the exit strategy is ... this site has it all. From "And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done." to "We will help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can grow in strength and defend their freedom. And then our servicemen and women will come home with the honor they have earned." to today's statement.
http://donhodges.com/Iraq_exit_strategy.html
May 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 amIn 1999, Bush was talking about Kosovo; now, Iraq.
Spell 'em, people.
K-O-S-O-V-O.
I-R-A-Q.
Not the same place.
May 2nd, 2007 at 10:18 amOne question for conservatives Post 60 in particular. Why is that you always respond to criticism of Bush sitting in a classroom after being told our nation was under attack with the most extreme answers?
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 amYou always give some lame response like: "Just what should President Bush have done when he heard of the incident? Jump up, wave his hands in panic and scream at the kids?" Why go to that extreme?? If he were a "real president" as you claim then instead of sitting there frozen in fear. He would have gotten up while remaing "calm and collected" and politely excused himself from the class and left the class to take care of the country he was elected to protect from such events. However, as we know he did not do that. Instead, he sat there and did nothing. Not really very presidential now is it?
The sad thing is it doesn't matter. Nothing matter's to Bush. He doesn't care about the wellbeing of the troops or the American people. He started this war based on misrepresented intel and bad intel at that. His primary reason is already known. He has appointed two conservative justices to the supreme court. He's made his and Cheney's buddies at haliburton and their subsidiaries even richer. He changed the tax code to benefit the extremely wealthy while continuing to put the burden on the dwindling middle class. He got what he wanted out of it now he just wants to keep it going so he can dump his problem onto the next president, which, if trends continue, will be a democrat. Who will have to get us out of the problem Bush created voluntarily. All so he can claim that he wasn't the one to quit. His policy failed. It's time to admit that and find a way for us to get out of it and the "we broke, we bought it" mentality.
May 3rd, 2007 at 9:50 amI keep hearing that if we announce a timetable as to when we are leaving Iraq, the insurgents will sit on the sidelines until we are gone, then inflict total chaos on Iraq.
If we don't ever leave Iraq, when will the insurgents stop fighting us? 20 years? 30 years? 50 years? How will we pay for such an ongoing war (including contractors like Halliburton, extra mercenaries like Blackwater and additional military equipment like overused planes that need new wings or replacement armor)? Do we continue to throw good money after bad? Do we want to keep taking people and equipment from our National Guard units so that they don't have the equipment do to help our own people in local emergencies like in Kansas? Do we want to consign our as-yet unknown children and grandchildren to fighting and dying in a bloody war?
I don't think Bush has ever planned to exit from Iraq. Look at the permanent military bases being constructed there, as well as the largest embassy in the world. Look at the deferred costs of this war, hiding the real blow to our pocketbooks, and look at the pending Iraqi legislation that will effectively make Iraq into a cheap source of oil under control of American oil companies for the next 30-50 years. Look at how we keep sending more and more and more troops, equipment, money, contractors and mercenaries over there.
Of course it's all about the oil.
May 8th, 2007 at 10:48 pmassessing child behavior problems
Still, I believe some people (like me) think in different way regarding this topic
March 15th, 2008 at 2:17 amGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 19th, 2008 at 6:54 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 amAss Tight Ass Ass Worship
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 24th, 2008 at 6:54 amtraditional towel
Nice Post... do you know what is the first? Maybe You can se My Post Here
March 25th, 2008 at 3:11 amPee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 12:01 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 12:26 amCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 6th, 2008 at 4:54 amAnne
All I can say is WOW! Extremely nice layouts, awesome graphics and great articles. No matter how many times I come here, I am still impressed by the very professional appearance. Congratulations on a job well done.
April 7th, 2008 at 8:30 pmPee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 6:55 amKds Bbs Pics Childporn Underage Nudist
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 9th, 2008 at 7:24 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 10:25 am