Forums Register login What's New?
Democrats call Zarqawi killing a stunt
Page 10 of 14
  1. Terry Schiavo?
    What a bad example, is that the best you can do?
    It is a liberal who made teh movie.
    Oh well, never mind
  2. Well, yes I am. "The buck stops here", Truman said. Bush is responsible for leading us into this war, Sourdough. Any president is responsible for what happens on his watch, especially if it is something he personally instigated. The Republican congress shares some responsibility, but this war is Bush's baby and everybody knows it--it's already in the history books.

    Any attempt to shift blame to minority Democrats is passing the buck. Harry Truman would be ashamed. He took responsibility for his actions.
  3. He would also be ashamed of the Democratic party of today for saying things
    like Bush stole the election if the buck stops here.
    Some Democrats want us to set a time table on leaving Iraq, its funny we
    didn't need to set up any time tables in Europe after WWII or Korea
    or anywhere else we've been.
    I do wonder what Truman would've thought about our politicians of today
    such as those comparing Iraq to Vietnam, closing Gitmo, etc, comparing
    Bush to Hitler, Butcher of Baghdad, etc.
    I'm not saying its all Democrats either but they stick out like a sore thumb.

    If Republicans acted like the Democrats of today maybe they would've called
    Truman Satan back then because of the hell on earth he created.

    You know what I've always said, I would've dropped the A bomb on Iraq and
    maybe on the whole middle east everytime I get angry about :911: .
  4. As martin is always pointing out, Liberals are not genuine. They parade as though they are out for just & moral causes, but it's a sham - because they always have their personal political goals behind it.

    It is okay to disagree with the war in Iraq. It's okay to not like our President. It is helpful to our society for people to speak about their disagreements with current politics. HOWEVER, it is devastating to our country & our war efforts when liberals have rallies to demand immediate withdrawal of our troops, charge our president with war crimes, and generally masquerade pretending about causes to advance their political agenda.
  5. This makes no sense. You are saying that they promote their political causes but it is somehow a sham because the causes they promote are political. We call that circular logic and martin is a champion at it.

    Agreed.

    Devastating? Give me a break, there is always a lunatic fringe on both the left and the right and they are generally ignored unless somebody wants to make political hay out of it by trying to paint an entire movement that way.

    And again, you suggest that their political agenda is somehow a "masquerade" because their agenda is political. What in the world do you mean?
  6. This is true. It is also true presidents sometimes must shoulder responsibility for what happens after their watch has concluded, if the result is a continuation of a failure during their watch, as with our fight with al-qaida. I'll post that quote by Bob Kerrey I like so much again:



    This does not sound right.? So, Cindy Sheehan and those idiots protesting at soldier's funerals receive so much attention from the media because conservatives want to make anyone to the left of them look like wackos?
  7. What I said was wackos are wackos, they exist on the left and the right, and they do not define either. Those idiots protesting at soldier's funerals? Those are conservative wackos, did you forget? :lol:

    The Indianapolis Star reported the protesters were not anti-war liberals but, rather, members of Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who claim that the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are inflicted by God to punish the United States for its acceptance of gays and lesbians.

    Right-wing religious kooks.
  8. No, they often pretend they aren't promoting political causes or use
    some cause that isn't directly political to promote their politics and they do it in a deceitful way.

    Devastating might be a bit strong, but I still believe it is very unhelpful. I'm not talking about the "lunatic fringe". I'm talking about most Liberals that get media attention. That's the problem with their political party, so many of them are so far to the left that it's not just the "lunatic fringe" you have to worry about.

    They are deceitful.
  9. No cause and effect?

    Read a doc captured from the al Zarqwai hideout. It explains the Vietnam plan pretty well and how because of Bush staying on course, how things aren't working.

    "The hippies will never win. The bums will lose, Lebowski."

    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/15/D8I8LJBG0.html

    1. To improve the image of the resistance in society, increase the number of supporters who are refusing occupation and show the clash of interest between society and the occupation and its collaborators. To use the media for spreading an effective and creative image of the resistance.

    Again, proof we are winning. But just keep ignoring it. Part of that lack of vision thing I described. It's not your fault....some people just don't have a long term vision of what will happen. That's why you're not in charge.


  10. Lets see, he claims to be an anti-war, pro-Saddam, pro-Castro democrat, but he hates gays and claims to be Christian. So, I guess that makes him actually what.......a moderate?:rofl: Nah, probably just a nutt.


    Fred Phelps


(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 10 of 14