+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 97 to 110 of 110

  1. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Are you getting the Idea here? I am not (as suggested) saying that everyone needs to support the war, or support the administration. It is the right of any American to voice dissent for the actions or lack of actions taken by the government and I don't oppose such dissent, or advocate any attempts to stop it.

    There is a huge difference between opposing the war, and for example, accusing the president of going to war to steal Iraqi oil. One is a moral stand against violence and the other is an unproven accusation against our government that support our enemies position and helps them win the heart and minds of the people in the middle of this struggle. In other words, it helps our enemies recruite more people to kill American soldiers and civillians.
    You know what Grim? People want answers, and they aren't getting any. People can sense when they are being misled, lied to etc... it's called "instinct". When that instinct kicks in, how can a person truly believe someone is being honest when that instinct is telling them otherwise? It's all in the eyes. Just by looking someone in the eyes, I can get a reallll good sense of who they are, and whether I should be around them or even trust them. With instinct like that, it serves as a very good guide in life. Maybe you should try it sometime, if you even feel good enough about yourself to look someone in the eye.

    There is ALWAYS a motive for a government to get involved in a war. If there wasn't a motive for going into Iraq, what was it? If Bush was going into Iraq to bring them democracy only, then why weren't various genocides stopped in other countries around the world? It all falls back on what is the Conservative agenda. They wanted to get into position in the middle east. Period. How they did it wasn't important.

    Some observations for you Grimmy.
    1) no matter what you try and pin on the Clinton administration for not revealing about Bin Laden prior to 9/11, doesn't exempt Bush and administration for falling asleep at the wheel at a crucial time period. The CIA & FBI don't disappear when there's a new president. They continue working on things as usual. Now if Bush couldn't take time in the 8 months he had before 9/11 to realize the seriousness of the situation, he shouldn't be president. Bush came in as president, and the CIA & FBI could have all made sure things were in place to protect the people. But because they failed to do this leads to #2

    2)It was permitted to happen Grim. It is all part of the Conservative platform. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" type event to give them more power to initiate their agenda, namely, the middle east agenda, which is why Iraq is the way it is today. They wanted to alleviate the pressure that is on Israel. So away they went.

    Bush may not have went to Iraq to steal their oil, but he did go over there to fulfill the conservative dream of infiltrating the middle east. The Iraqi oil, is merely gravy. Mission accomplished.

  2. 07-08-2006, 06:15 PM


  3. #98
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    234

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    James Forrestal was Under Secretary of the Navy under Roosevelt and Secretary of defense with Truman. The Forrestal diaries tell a story not often read or heard in our historical perspectives. There was also the fear of communistic spread here and abroad, the desire for a solid “World Organization,” and the recognition of an obvious leftist movement of the American Press.

    September 2, 1944 ---- In Forrestal’s letter to Palmer Hoyt, “I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants.”

    September 28, 1945 ---- Ambassador Patrick Hurley who had just returned from China told Forrestal, “a good many of the professional staff of the State Department had not merely been of no help to him but a definite hindrance.” He went on to relate that many of the American Correspondents were communistically inclined as well as many of the people in the State Department.”

    July 10, 1946 ---- While visiting Japan and MacArthur at this time Forrestal wrote that MacArthur stated he was critical and contemptuous of what he called the left-wing writers in the American press. They were, he said, playing the game, whether consciously or not, of the communists against the interests of their own country.

    In later years, after the communists were firmly in power in Vietnam, they admitted that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for them. The Premier of N. Vietnam stated ---- “That if it hadn’t been for your rebels and collaborators we would have sued for peace but because of them we had too much going for us.”

    General Vo Nguyen Giop, commander of the North Vietnamese forces believed that their war strategy was valid and well grounded and well formulated but not sufficient for victory. He also stated that his military had been hard pressed to being victorious in any battle but they were encouraged to continue since the American troops were being knifed from behind with the cleaver of American public opinion.

    In an interview which appeared in the Wall Street Journal August 3, 1995, the then Colonel Bui Tin stated frankly “that the key to their victory was the American home front, and that they were encouraged to fight on by all the anti-war demonstrations in the United States.” He further acknowledged that “Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”


    As you can see, nothing has changed.

    The fact that we have a party in our country whose sole role is to win an election even if it aids and abets an enemy while we are at war is a sad commentary. It happened before and they got away with it. Maybe this is what James Russell Lowell meant when he wrote, “Democracy gives every man a right to be his own oppressor.”


    LS
    Ainka-dasa'yegwide mukua-i

  4. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    2,272

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneStar
    James Forrestal was Under Secretary of the Navy under Roosevelt and Secretary of defense with Truman. The Forrestal diaries tell a story not often read or heard in our historical perspectives. There was also the fear of communistic spread here and abroad, the desire for a solid “World Organization,” and the recognition of an obvious leftist movement of the American Press.

    September 2, 1944 ---- In Forrestal’s letter to Palmer Hoyt, “I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants.”
    LS,
    Again neglecting to post a link....cute.

    WEBCommentary
    2004 by George M. Haddad
    All Rights Reserved.
    "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
    http://www.webcommentary.com/asp/Sho...dg&date=040531

    George does seem to have a problem with the truth however.
    In this case the whole truth and nothing but the truth, opting instead for revisionist history and engaging in egregious sins of omission. None of his writings bother to acknowledge original source info which automatically demotes this pseudo intellectual to hack status.

    Forestall was in fact a “Closet Fascist” by the way and was ‘outed’ many years ago.
    He was also a raving paranoid and suffered from profound delusions.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Forrestal

    If you care to read more detail on James Forrestal you will find that he was also a traitor and was conspiring to offer aid to the Hitler during WWII.

    Trading with the Enemy
    The Nazi - American Money Plot 1933-1949

    by Charles Higham
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fa..._excerpts.html
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/044...e=UTF8&s=books

    I find it interesting that Haddad holds him in such high regard.
    [talk about siding with the Enemy? Subject of the thread remember?
    James Forrestal was a freakin' early pioneer in this respect]
    Last edited by Phinnly Slash Buster; 07-15-2006 at 03:02 AM.

  5. #100
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneStar
    James Forrestal was Under Secretary of the Navy under Roosevelt and Secretary of defense with Truman. The Forrestal diaries tell a story not often read or heard in our historical perspectives. There was also the fear of communistic spread here and abroad, the desire for a solid “World Organization,” and the recognition of an obvious leftist movement of the American Press.

    September 2, 1944 ---- In Forrestal’s letter to Palmer Hoyt, “I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants.”

    September 28, 1945 ---- Ambassador Patrick Hurley who had just returned from China told Forrestal, “a good many of the professional staff of the State Department had not merely been of no help to him but a definite hindrance.” He went on to relate that many of the American Correspondents were communistically inclined as well as many of the people in the State Department.”

    July 10, 1946 ---- While visiting Japan and MacArthur at this time Forrestal wrote that MacArthur stated he was critical and contemptuous of what he called the left-wing writers in the American press. They were, he said, playing the game, whether consciously or not, of the communists against the interests of their own country.

    In later years, after the communists were firmly in power in Vietnam, they admitted that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for them. The Premier of N. Vietnam stated ---- “That if it hadn’t been for your rebels and collaborators we would have sued for peace but because of them we had too much going for us.”

    General Vo Nguyen Giop, commander of the North Vietnamese forces believed that their war strategy was valid and well grounded and well formulated but not sufficient for victory. He also stated that his military had been hard pressed to being victorious in any battle but they were encouraged to continue since the American troops were being knifed from behind with the cleaver of American public opinion.

    In an interview which appeared in the Wall Street Journal August 3, 1995, the then Colonel Bui Tin stated frankly “that the key to their victory was the American home front, and that they were encouraged to fight on by all the anti-war demonstrations in the United States.” He further acknowledged that “Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”


    As you can see, nothing has changed.

    The fact that we have a party in our country whose sole role is to win an election even if it aids and abets an enemy while we are at war is a sad commentary. It happened before and they got away with it. Maybe this is what James Russell Lowell meant when he wrote, “Democracy gives every man a right to be his own oppressor.”


    LS
    Ainka-dasa'yegwide mukua-i
    This is typical from the one-dimensional, simplistic and naive' "minds" of the America is John Wayne crew. They will never get it. They have been subjected to cultist brain-washing from the day they were pooped out, so getting through to them on any meaningful "human" level is quite un-likely.

    The excerpted aphorism only plays if you're a rabid, self serving, imperialist, murdering war monger who thinks it's a good thing to habitually meddle in the affairs of other nations, especially if you can make a nice buck doing it.

    There's one obvious factor usually ignored and that is clear in retrospect, contrary to the delusional alibis of the sicko pro-war vampires who have come back out of their fetid crypts to make an encore appearance for Iraq-Nam.

    We weren't then and aren't now the good guys. So, anybody who creates an obstacle or an impediment to the nefarious criminal schemes of war profiteers and traitors like a Nixon or Bush, whether it be Jane Fonda or Cindy Sheehan, are the only ones wearing any white hats.
    Last edited by dchristie; 07-15-2006 at 06:12 AM.

  6. #101
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Are you getting the Idea here? I am not (as suggested) saying that everyone needs to support the war, or support the administration. It is the right of any American to voice dissent for the actions or lack of actions taken by the government and I don't oppose such dissent, or advocate any attempts to stop it.

    There is a huge difference between opposing the war, and for example, accusing the president of going to war to steal Iraqi oil. One is a moral stand against violence and the other is an unproven accusation against our government that support our enemies position and helps them win the heart and minds of the people in the middle of this struggle. In other words, it helps our enemies recruite more people to kill American soldiers and civillians.
    Oh and one other observation Grim. Are they the enemy because they disagree with us? or do they have an actual point? Just because they don't hold your view or outlook on things doesn't make them the enemy.

  7. #102
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    SW United States
    Posts
    6,643

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawb
    You know what Grim? People want answers, and they aren't getting any. People can sense when they are being misled, lied to etc... That is my point... They have investigated many of these issues on a bi-partisan basis because the democrats and liberal left demanded it. Then when their conclusions didn't end up being what you expected them to be, you disregard them and instead rely on a "sense" you have. it's called "instinct". When that instinct kicks in, how can a person truly believe someone is being honest when that instinct is telling them otherwise? It's all in the eyes. Just by looking someone in the eyes, I can get a really good sense of who they are, and whether I should be around them or even trust them. With instinct like that, it serves as a very good guide in life. Maybe you should try it sometime, if you even feel good enough about yourself to look someone in the eye. I live on my instinct when meeting people. My initial gut feelings on people are extremely accurate and I rely heavily on it. I don't know the president or members of the administration, or intelligence analyst, congressmen, or senators. I have never shook their hands and looked them in the eye in person, so I have to instead rely on the findings of bi-partisan investigations to ferret out the facts.

    There is ALWAYS a motive for a government to get involved in a war. If there wasn't a motive for going into Iraq, what was it? If Bush was going into Iraq to bring them democracy only, then why weren't various genocides stopped in other countries around the world? Who said that was the reason? The president certainly didn't. It was a bi-product of removing Saddam, but was not the motive or reason. It all falls back on what is the Conservative agenda. They wanted to get into position in the middle east. Period. How they did it wasn't important. Look, the president and the administration layed out the reasons, and those were: Saddam was classified an enemy in the war on terror... He didn't comply with resolution 1441 and account for the wmd he admitted to having... And world wide intelligence believed he possessed stockpiles of wmd and reconstituted his nuclear program.

    Some observations for you Grimmy.
    1) no matter what you try and pin on the Clinton administration for not revealing about Bin Laden prior to 9/11, Say what? I haven't blamed Clinton for anything dude! doesn't exempt Bush and administration for falling asleep at the wheel at a crucial time period. The CIA & FBI don't disappear when there's a new president. They continue working on things as usual. Now if Bush couldn't take time in the 8 months he had before 9/11 to realize the seriousness of the situation, he shouldn't be president. What kind of bull is that? There was nothing that was ever presented to the administration that indicated what was to take place on 9/11. For you to suggest otherwise is nothing but baseless bull****. Bush came in as president, and the CIA & FBI could have all made sure things were in place to protect the people. But because they failed to do this leads to #2

    2)It was permitted to happen Grim. It is all part of the Conservative platform. They needed a "Pearl Harbor" type event to give them more power to initiate their agenda, namely, the middle east agenda, which is why Iraq is the way it is today. They wanted to alleviate the pressure that is on Israel. So away they went. You are suggesting the administration either knew of, initiated or aided in the attacks of 9/11. You do this without one shred of evidence to back it up with. This is the most vile and anti-American thing anyone could do, and you chose to do it. You can't back up that pile of crap with anything that even comes close to credible evidence and the fact you won't even try to says all anyone needs to know about your position.

    Bush may not have went to Iraq to steal their oil, but he did go over there to fulfill the conservative dream of infiltrating the middle east. The Iraqi oil, is merely gravy. Mission accomplished. Not yet it isn't, and if we let liberals like you control this country we will surely leave the middle east in defeat. What ever happened to putting America first?
    That ought to cover it.

    .

  8. #103
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by LoneStar
    James Forrestal was Under Secretary of the Navy under Roosevelt and Secretary of defense with Truman. The Forrestal diaries tell a story not often read or heard in our historical perspectives. There was also the fear of communistic spread here and abroad, the desire for a solid “World Organization,” and the recognition of an obvious leftist movement of the American Press.

    September 2, 1944 ---- In Forrestal’s letter to Palmer Hoyt, “I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants.”

    September 28, 1945 ---- Ambassador Patrick Hurley who had just returned from China told Forrestal, “a good many of the professional staff of the State Department had not merely been of no help to him but a definite hindrance.” He went on to relate that many of the American Correspondents were communistically inclined as well as many of the people in the State Department.”

    July 10, 1946 ---- While visiting Japan and MacArthur at this time Forrestal wrote that MacArthur stated he was critical and contemptuous of what he called the left-wing writers in the American press. They were, he said, playing the game, whether consciously or not, of the communists against the interests of their own country.

    In later years, after the communists were firmly in power in Vietnam, they admitted that the Tet offensive was a military disaster for them. The Premier of N. Vietnam stated ---- “That if it hadn’t been for your rebels and collaborators we would have sued for peace but because of them we had too much going for us.”

    General Vo Nguyen Giop, commander of the North Vietnamese forces believed that their war strategy was valid and well grounded and well formulated but not sufficient for victory. He also stated that his military had been hard pressed to being victorious in any battle but they were encouraged to continue since the American troops were being knifed from behind with the cleaver of American public opinion.

    In an interview which appeared in the Wall Street Journal August 3, 1995, the then Colonel Bui Tin stated frankly “that the key to their victory was the American home front, and that they were encouraged to fight on by all the anti-war demonstrations in the United States.” He further acknowledged that “Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses.”


    As you can see, nothing has changed.

    The fact that we have a party in our country whose sole role is to win an election even if it aids and abets an enemy while we are at war is a sad commentary. It happened before and they got away with it. Maybe this is what James Russell Lowell meant when he wrote, “Democracy gives every man a right to be his own oppressor.”


    LS
    Ainka-dasa'yegwide mukua-i
    well........were all glad you got THAT out of your SYSTEM!?hehe!!but lets just scrutinize 1 paragraph....September 2, 1944 ---- In Forrestal’s letter to Palmer Hoyt, “I find that whenever any American suspects that we act in accordance with the needs of our own security he is apt to be called a god-damned fascist or imperialist, while if Uncle Joe (Stalin) suggests that he needs the Baltic Provinces, half of Poland, all of Bessarabia and access to the Mediterranean, all hands agree that he is a fine, frank, candid and generally delightful fellow who is very easy to deal with because he is so explicit in what he wants.”
    now this in my opinion is very well said if you arnt prejudice in YOUR APPRAISAL!?i mean if uncle sam and uncle joe are at odds.....i dont see it expressed here!?it basically says that if uncle joe wants to do what he wants and it dont effect me directly today then.....i'm busy havin fun over here.but if uncle sam wants to pull the same shenanigins over here/over there.......then.....i BETTER say somethin cause ya never know when THEY are GONNA POINT a FINGER AT me!?call it human nature!?hehe!!TAKES REAL GUTS!?,i know,but it's our duty if ya ask me!?but as to why nothing has changed........the ONLY way anything will EVER change regarding HUMAN NATURE is if we EDUCATE people in the WAYS OF TRUE PEACE and NOT THE WAYS of DEMANDED PEACE!?now please state FOR THE RECORD why YOU choose to be on the SIDE of DEMANDED PEACE and why this should not include the DESCRIPTION of a TERRORIST!?hehe!!just askin.........

  9. #104
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    Lady mod, you don't have to make it this easy for me. I really thought you might dispute what I posted instead of concurring with me by posting every argument that our enemies could possibly come up with to use against us.

    If the idea was to prove that you and members of the left absolutely side with America's enemy, you have done an outstanding job!

    .
    ya know...........SOUNDS SO familiar..........HHMMMMM!!OH YEAH!!now i remember.........i think we should refer to the GRIM(grinch!?)hehe!! as "GENERATION MC CARTHY" II!?)the final destination!?hehe!!just askin.........like the evangelicals say......"S H I T"......or was it "LOVE YOUR ENEMY"(if he's republican!?).....I DONT KNOW!?just tell me what to DOO and let me live MR.FLAG PANTS!?hehe!!OH!!by the way i herd a rumor(from the whitehouse!?)that LARRY FLINT is interested in using your AVATAR as a COVER shot on 1 of his NEW VIDEOS!!he's got cash waitin and the fame would be felt all the way to the bank!?and you could stay anonymous to BOOT!?hehe!!now that's a NON TRANSPARENT republican WIN-WIN proposal no PATRIOT could turn down!?hehe!!just askin.......

  10. #105
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Aspartame Island
    Posts
    920

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17

    What ever happened to putting America first?

    That ought to cover it.

    .
    You mean... putting Israel first.

    If Israel had their way, we would be fighting Syria and Iran as well.

  11. #106
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    14,663

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawb
    You mean... putting Israel first.

    If Israel had their way, we would be fighting Syria and Iran as well.

    LOL...How perspicacious of you. When these faux-American Zionists say they're putting America first, they mean they're sending American kids in first to bleed and die for Israel.

  12. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by sojustask
    ROFL, don't you just love these guys who know nothing, read nothing and are incapable of intelligent thought coming on the forum to tell the rest of us what is the truth and what isn't? I think Frankie has been in a coma the last 11 months before Grim woke him up with a kiss and he started posting again.

    Talk about two peas in a pod? Grim and Frankie are like TweedleDUMB and TweedleDUMBER. And let's not forget good old Catch22, the third wheel, good old Humpty Catcher who fell off the wall and cracked his noggin.

    I wonder which Neocon will be paying us a visit next? Raider? Pwrone? Or will they breed a new one? :D

    At least they are entertaining.

    Lady Mod
    hahaha... Frankie and Grim. Or...beauty and the beast. You come up with who is who in that scenario.

  13. #108
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by dchristie
    LOL...How perspicacious of you. When these faux-American Zionists say they're putting America first, they mean they're sending American kids in first to bleed and die for Israel.
    In the meantime, still sending us the bill for the next billion dollars to send their way. Fvcking Zionists!

    Maybe we should send all them fvcking Zionist supporters from America over to Israel so they can be "up close and personal". Namely, Tim Hayes and all those other right-wing supporting c0ckroaches that are supporting Israel's destruction on innocent people. They want to support that? Go over there then, and be a part of it. Hope they don't come back.

    Their rapture can be a Hezbollah missile up their as$es.

  14. #109
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,803

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rawb
    You mean... putting Israel first.

    If Israel had their way, we would be fighting Syria and Iran as well.
    Yeah...Israel first on the "to do" list

  15. #110
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    31

    Re: Do The Democrats Side With America's Enemy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grim17
    I started this thread by comparing the words of Osama Bin Laden to the words that have been publicly spoken by many democrats. What I have gotten in the way of responses is mostly dissapointing, but in reality what I had expected anyway.

    Not one person has bothered to address the fact that many democrats and the majority of the far left in this country, based on their public statements, side with our enemy. None of them have anything to say about that, except the usual twisting of my words to come to false conclusions about what I wrote. Let me again clarify:

    Against the war = OK
    Against the handling of the war = OK
    Dislike for the president = OK
    Making unsubstanciated alligations about motives of our president = NOT OK
    Saying Marines killed in "cold blood" in Haditha without proof = NOT OK
    Saying our troops terrorize innocent women and children = NOT OK
    Saying we torture people at Gitmo without proof = NOT OK
    Comparing out troops to those of Hitler's, Stalin's and Pol Pot's = NOT OK
    Saying Bush lied about WMD without investigative conclusions to support that = NOT OK

    Are you getting the Idea here? I am not (as suggested) saying that everyone needs to support the war, or support the administration. It is the right of any American to voice dissent for the actions or lack of actions taken by the government and I don't oppose such dissent, or advocate any attempts to stop it.

    There is a huge difference between opposing the war, and for example, accusing the president of going to war to steal Iraqi oil. One is a moral stand against violence and the other is an unproven accusation against our government that support our enemies position and helps them win the heart and minds of the people in the middle of this struggle. In other words, it helps our enemies recruite more people to kill American soldiers and civillians.

    I hope I have made my position clear, because the constant attempts to twist my words so that you all can avoid the facts and the reality of what your side of the fence has been doing, is getting very old.

    DeeDee was the only one of you to actually respond in an intelectual way, by asking questions and attempting to disern my message or point. If you look at my responses to her, you won't see attacks, insults or anything of that nature. She responded respectfully and I in return answered her respectfully. Unfortunatly, nobody else from the left was capable of doing so.

    Lady mod has once again shown that all she can do when faced with truths that she doesn't like, is resort to insults. I have not attacked her, yet look at how may times she insults or attacks me on a personal level. This kind of behaviour has allways been the trade mark of UserName and dchristie, and now it seems that lady mod has also chosen that path based on her responses of the last few months. All that is left for her to do, is throw her hat into the "Genocide" ring and her transformation into irrelivantcy will be complete.

    I can talk about being honest to those of you on the left till I'm blue in the face and it will never come to pass. Your hatred for the president and his administration has become the only truth you know. I hope that one day that will pass and you all can learn how to use the truth to get your message across, rather than the dangerous "anything goes" game of politics you engage in now that's putting the lives of thousands of Americans in unnessisary danger.

    .
    Do you believe in America and what it is supposed to stand for Grim? Do you even know what America is supposed to be about? It is you who is siding with the enemy.

Similar Threads

  1. Democrats: The enemy of Afro-Americans
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-02-2011, 10:24 AM
  2. Why Democrats are the enemy of the state
    By danrush1966 in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-01-2011, 07:57 PM
  3. The True Enemy Of Modern America
    By Yeah Well Fine Then in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 99
    Last Post: 01-13-2010, 08:11 AM
  4. Replies: 55
    Last Post: 12-19-2006, 01:18 AM
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-07-2006, 08:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, 129, 2001, ???, abc, abc news, access, account, accurate, accusation, acted, action, actions, acts, additionally, address, administration, admit, admitted, adolf, advanced, adviser, advisor, affairs, age, agen, ages, aid, ain, aint, airport, al qaeda, ale, alexander, aliens, allegations, alliance, allowed, allowing, amazing, ambassador, amendment, america, american, annual, another, anti, apologized, appeared, appraisal, approved, april, apt, arab, archive, arms, army, article, asset, associated press, asy, attacked, attacks, attempts, attitude, attorney general, august, authority, authorization, authorized, ave, avoid, award, azi, bad, baghdad, balance, ban, based, basic, basically, beat, bed, begging, bet, bigger, bin, bite, blame, blessed, blood, blue, body, bogus, bomb, books, boot, boots, borders, boy, breakdown, breaking, brief, bring, bringing, bro, broke, buddy, building, bull, bur, bureau, buster, cabinet, called, calling, calls, campaign, camps, capabilities, capture, captured, care, carry, cartoons, case, cash, catch, causing, center, central, cer, chain, chan, charles, che, cheese, cheney, cher, chris, christian, citizens, civil, claim, clark, clean, clever, cli, clinto, clips, clo, close, clown, clueless, code, collected, collection, college, colonel, coma, coming, commentary, comments, commercial, commissioned, commit, common, community, complain, complete, comprehension, con, conceal, concerned, concerns, condi, confirmed, congressional, connections, conservative, consisted, constant, contest, continue, continues, contrast, contributed, convictions, core, corporate, corporation, correct, correction, couldn, countries, country, court order, courts, cover, crap, crash, crazy, creates, credible, credit, crew, crisis, critical, crowd, cult, damage, dan, day, days, dea, dead, dean, death, decades, december, decided, deciding, decision, declared, defeat, defend, defines, delusions, demonize, dems, dennis, department, deplorable, dept, description, desert, designated, desk, desperate, destroyed, destruction, detected, devastating, development, devil, dick, differences, differently, difficult, dig, diploma, director, dirty, disaster, discounted, disgusting, dish, disrespects, disrupt, distortion, disturbing, division, doe, doesn, dog, domestic spying, don, dont, double, dow, dozen, dropped, duck, due, ear, earlier, early, edward, elected, electio, electoral, elemental, ells, eme, emergency, endangering, ended, endorsed, ends, endurance, enemy, engineers, enter, entire, equipment, error, ethical, europe, eva, evangelicals, exceptions, exercise, exit, experience, experts, explained, expose, express, extreme, extremely, extremists, eyes, face, faced, factor, factories, fail, faithful, fall, false, families, fashion, father, federal, fee, feel, felt, field, fight, figures, final, financial, finding, fired, first amendment, fisa, fix, flag, floor, fly, focus, forces, forensic, forgot, formula, forward, fox, framed, france, frank, front, fully, future, gain, gas, gave, gay, general, generation, george, george w. bush, girls, give, global, gonna, good, gov, government, grand, greatest, green, grim, ground, group, growing, gullible, gut, guys, hand, handicapped, handle, hands, happiness, har, harbor, hard, harm, harry, hasn, hates, headquarters, heart, hearts, held, hell, helps, hero, hey, hidden, hide, hiding, high, higher, hijackers, holds, hole, homeland, homes, honorable, hot, hours, house, howard, html, huge, huma, human, hurt, hussein, ial, ian, ignorant, ignore, iii, ill, imagine, ime, imminent, impact, important, in front, incident, include, index, influence, info, insults, intelligence, inter, intercept, interview, invade, investigated, investigative, involved, ion, islamic, isn, issue, issues, jack, jail, jet, jimmy, joe, john, john kerry, joint, jones, judiciary, judiciary committee, justify, keepin, kennedy, kerry, kicking, killed, kind, kiss, knew, korea, labs, laden, lady, larry, last, latest, laugh, launch, lawmakers, lazy, lead, leaders, leading, leads, leaked, leaving, lets, letter, liars, liberal, liberals, liberty, libya, lied, light, limits, lions, lis, listed, listen, living, local, lol, long, longer, los, loser, loss, love, lumpkin, lying, mad, mails, making, male, mark, martial, mass, massive, matter, maxine, mea, media, meet, meeting, members, men, mental, mess, message, messages, method, middle, millions, mind, minister, minutes, mods, monger, monkeys, moral, more, morning, mother, motives, move, msnbc, muslim, myth, nail, nam, nasty, nation, national, national security, nations, nature, nazi, nbc, needed, ner, net, networks, new york times, nice, night, nixon, north, nuclear, numbers, office, officers, official, officials, open, operation, operations, opportunity, opposite, oral, order, ordered, org, organization, organizations, outs, panic, paper, par, part, pass, passed, patrick, patriot, patty, peas, pen, pentagon, people, perle, person, personal, personally, peter, picked, pile, pin, pioneer, planes, planning, plans, platform, play, point, pol, poland, policies, policy, politics, poor, pos, pose, position, positive, post, posted, posting, posts, potential, powell, power, pra, predicted, premier, prepared, preparing, presiden, pressed, prevent, price, principles, prisoners, privacy, private, process, product, production, professional, progress, propaganda, proposal, prosecuted, prosecutor, protect, protected, prove, proved, proven, proves, public, public opinion, pull, pulled, pun, punished, puppy, pursuit, putting, question, questions, quick, quickly, quote, quotes, race, rap, rare, rated, raving, rea, read, ready, real, reality, reason, reasonable, reasons, rebels, receiving, red, reduction, reform, refused, regime, reid, release, released, releases, reliable, religion, religious, remarks, remember, remind, reporters, reporting, research, resignation, resolute, respect, respond, response, responsible, ress, rest, restore, retired, revealing, rice, rick, ring, rio, role, room, rose, roy, rush, sad, safe, safety, sam, sca, scenario, science, scientists, scott, scottish, sean, secretary, sen, senate, senate judiciary committee, senators, sends, sense, sensitive, sept, september, served, service, services, sessions, set, shares, sheet, shipping, short, shot, shouldn, showed, shred, shut, shut up, side, sign, simple, simply, sincere, singer, site, small, smoke, sniper, soldiers, sole, solid, solve, soo, sooner, sorry, sounds, source, sources, sparen, speaking, special, specifically, spokesman, spring, staff, star, stars, start, starting, state, state department, stated, states, status, stay, steal, stein, stone, stones, stood, stop, stories, story, strategy, stream, street, strength, strike, stripping, stupid, style, subs, succeeded, successful, suckers, sued, summer, sunday, support, supported, supporting, surveillance, survive, sweet, system, systems, tactic, taken, takes, talk, talking, targeted, targets, ted, telephone calls, tells, terror, terrorism, terrorist, test, text, the far right, the wall, theory, thinks, thought, thread, threatening, threats, throw, thursday, ties, times, tips, today, told, top, tor, tour, tower, town, trac, track, tracks, trade, trailers, traitor, transparent, treason, treasury, treatment, troops, u.s., u.s. government, uncle, union, unit, united, united states, universe, unprecedented, unreal, update, urgent, url, usa, usual, vacation, van, version, veteran, vice, victory, view, village, vince, viole, violence, vital, voted, voting, wait, waiting, waking, wallace, wanted, war, warfare, wash, water, wayne, ways, weak, weapon, wearing, week, weeks, wheel, wide, wikipedia, win, winner, wire, wolf, woma, won, wont, wore, worked, working, world, worldwide, worth, wow, wrong, year, years, yesterday, york, young

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •