She's in the money
On 3/1/10 7:59 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 15:13:37 -0500,
wrote:
On 3/1/10 1:47 PM, Capt. JG wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:20:42 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:
Larry wrote:
"Capt. wrote in
easolutions:
Well, if that were all it was, I wouldn't have an argument, but the
context of his comment (all his previous and continuing diatribes
about Zionism, etc.) makes that a weak argument. The words themselves
mean little, but the context of them (especially of the particular
speaker - any speaker) are highly important to that understanding.
Without Zionism, America wouldn't be in the ****ty position it is in
today, fighting Israel's wars for them.
Sure they would. America is in the position of having to defend numerous
democracies against numerous different tyrannies. Israel is only one of
many. One of the best, but one of many.
Iraqis and Afghans aren't near the threat to America that the now-
nuclear-weapon-carrying-submarined Zionist state is. Every one of you
Americans are now in range of Israeli nuclear weapons, thanks to the
Germans who sold them 5 submarines for their delivery, any place on the
planet.
Woops. Slipping into kook mode again. Real democracies have never fought
significant wars against each other and probably never will.
Stephen
Weren't both the United States (USA) and the Confederated States of
America (CSA) democracies? and didn't they fight a war? Wasn't it
significant?
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Do you really consider the CSA a legitimate democracy in the sense that
_all_ it's people were represented? Certainly, the blacks weren't.
I don't think Lincoln did.
The confederacy was an abomination, not a country.
Certainly the CSA was a legitimate in 1861 as the Continental Congress
was in 1775.
Cheers,
Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)
Nope.
|