NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article 539ec029-4cad-464b-b584-d433e01dfa14
@c34g2000yqi.googlegroups.com, says...
Bozoma SEIU union goons beat a black anti-Obamacare protestor so
badly
he had a concussion while the goons yelled racial epiteths, Obama
shows he does not want constitutional law by backing the Chavez
protege Zelaya in Honduras, Obama threatens to show opponents "The
Chicago Way", his "Justice Dept" drops charges against armed black
panthers threatening voters, etc, etc, etc. Can anybody blame a
protestor for showing he is ready to resist Obama thugs by
carrying a
gun? His public display of this gun may have prevented Obama goon
violence.
Now that the Obama goons have been put on notice that their violence
will not be tolerated, I'd like to see no more guns but this display
certainly sent the message that a response to the Bozoma goons might
be expected.
Pffffttt. The guy was probably a lib shill,
Of course..........
And why not, there have been several instances of Obama supporters
shilling signs and stuff at the meetings. I noted before after
Pelosi lied about Hitler signs at the meetings from protestors and
was called on it (and could not point to on instance), a protestor
showed up with an Obama Hitler sign. Later the news crew on the
scene found him in a SEIU shirt, handing out pamphlets.. What's so
hard to figure out about that, the guy was a bussed in, organized
shill...

There's been several instances of conservatives shilling signs and
stuff at meetings, too.

Show me...


http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...ons/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_253478.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_253478.html


I remember all too well when liberals protested against Bush policy, we
were called fascists. Now when the conservatives are doing it it's
democracy!

Sucks to be you now doesn't it.

"BAR" wrote in message
...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 19, 10:20 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 19, 9:09 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 19, 7:58 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:22 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:08 pm, J i m wrote:
wf3h wrote:
go back to your fertilzer/fuel oil bombs.
How's the one's war in Afganistain going?
he's making progress in cleaning up bush's **** up
I thought that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad
war..
right. but bush was on the point of losing afghanistan because he's
an
idiot
What is our goal in Afghanistan? What do we think we are going to
accomplish that no one else in recorded history has accomplished?
i'm guessing you think afghanistan has never been conquered.
and that is wrong.
What value, strategic or economic, does Afghanistan present to the US
of
A? Why are you willing to waste US lives conquering Afghanistan? What
are you going to do with it once you have conquered it?-
set up a government that is friendly to the US so that afghanistan
never again attacks us.
you're really, REALLY ****ing stupid.
Afghanistan did not attack us.

sure did. the attack was launched from afghanistan. i'm not sure what
planet you're on, but it needs a better earth news service

I must have missed the Afghan army uniforms that the 19 hijackers were
wearing.

Bin Laden used Afghanistan as a base from
which to run his organization. Bin Laden was extremely smart in picking
Afghanistan due to the fact that it is land-locked and surrounded by
countries that are not exactly best friends of the US of A.

ah. so he 'used it as a base'. what did he do? go to avis rent-a-
country?

Yes, he did go to rent-a-country.

christ you're dumber than i thought possible. and i really thought you
were stupid.

You still haven't said what our goal in Afghanistan is and why we are
there.

Georgie should have invaded Saudi Arabia... but he was too busy holding
hands and swapping spit with the king & his family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h27HRNm_r4U

On Aug 19, 6:39*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
What is the goal? What is the end-game? When do we leave?-

and your goal in surrendering is?

Just as I thought, you have no idea why we are in Afghanistan.-

says the guy who thinks neville chamberlain and vidkund quisling were
heroes of humanity

On Aug 19, 6:41*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:


ah. so he 'used it as a base'. what did he do? go to avis rent-a-
country?

Yes, he did go to rent-a-country.

christ you're dumber than i thought possible. and i really thought you
were stupid.

You still haven't said what our goal in Afghanistan is and why we are
there.-

you still haven't said why you favor surrender

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 19, 6:41 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:

ah. so he 'used it as a base'. what did he do? go to avis rent-a-
country?
Yes, he did go to rent-a-country.

christ you're dumber than i thought possible. and i really thought you
were stupid.
You still haven't said what our goal in Afghanistan is and why we are
there.-

you still haven't said why you favor surrender

I don't favor surrender, I am trying to understand why you are a
warmonger now that Obama is in office.

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article , says...
"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 7:58 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:22 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:08 pm, J i m wrote:
wf3h wrote:
go back to your fertilzer/fuel oil bombs.
How's the one's war in Afganistain going?
he's making progress in cleaning up bush's **** up
I thought that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad war.
right. but bush was on the point of losing afghanistan because he's an
idiot
What is our goal in Afghanistan? What do we think we are going to
accomplish that no one else in recorded history has accomplished?
i'm guessing you think afghanistan has never been conquered.

and that is wrong.

The first question is certainly valid. The current administration has
answered this several times. The problem was lack of responsbility of
ownership of the original invasion. The previous administration didn't get
it right, because they didn't follow the well-established Powell doctrine,
not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, the latter being a war of choice vs. one of
necessity. We're paying the price for the neglect right now in both
places... the former for not really making the commitment (and a war for
which we had a lot of support and justification), the second for going there
in the first place (where we had practically no support and certainly no
justification).

... and he declared. "No sentence shall be written without a bumper
sticker phrase included.. And thus, it was so, and responsible debate
was summarily dismissed.....

Responsible debate? Do you mean like going to town hall meetings with AK's?
Or do you mean responsible debate like conservatives never, ever do
anything wrong, and everything and anything liberals do IS wrong?

I mean civil debate like I have here, not calling names, not lying, just
presenting video and asking tough questions that make the other side
call me names or start spewing insults toward republicans in general...


--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

JustWait wrote:
In article , says...
"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 7:58 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:22 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:08 pm, J i m wrote:
wf3h wrote:
go back to your fertilzer/fuel oil bombs.
How's the one's war in Afganistain going?
he's making progress in cleaning up bush's **** up
I thought that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad war.
right. but bush was on the point of losing afghanistan because he's an
idiot
What is our goal in Afghanistan? What do we think we are going to
accomplish that no one else in recorded history has accomplished?
i'm guessing you think afghanistan has never been conquered.

and that is wrong.

The first question is certainly valid. The current administration has
answered this several times. The problem was lack of responsbility of
ownership of the original invasion. The previous administration didn't get
it right, because they didn't follow the well-established Powell doctrine,
not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, the latter being a war of choice vs. one of
necessity. We're paying the price for the neglect right now in both
places... the former for not really making the commitment (and a war for
which we had a lot of support and justification), the second for going there
in the first place (where we had practically no support and certainly no
justification).

... and he declared. "No sentence shall be written without a bumper
sticker phrase included.. And thus, it was so, and responsible debate
was summarily dismissed.....

Responsible debate? Do you mean like going to town hall meetings with AK's?
Or do you mean responsible debate like conservatives never, ever do
anything wrong, and everything and anything liberals do IS wrong?

Have you read the harryesque rants of WF3H or whatever his name is.
Nothing but derogatory insults and trolls designed to inflame, not
inform... The kid is not much sharper than Donnie..

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article , says...

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 7:58 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:22 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:08 pm, J i m wrote:
wf3h wrote:
go back to your fertilzer/fuel oil bombs.
How's the one's war in Afganistain going?
he's making progress in cleaning up bush's **** up
I thought that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad
war.

right. but bush was on the point of losing afghanistan because he's
an
idiot

What is our goal in Afghanistan? What do we think we are going to
accomplish that no one else in recorded history has accomplished?

i'm guessing you think afghanistan has never been conquered.

and that is wrong.


The first question is certainly valid. The current administration has
answered this several times. The problem was lack of responsbility of
ownership of the original invasion. The previous administration didn't
get
it right, because they didn't follow the well-established Powell
doctrine,
not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, the latter being a war of choice vs. one
of
necessity. We're paying the price for the neglect right now in both
places... the former for not really making the commitment (and a war for
which we had a lot of support and justification), the second for going
there
in the first place (where we had practically no support and certainly no
justification).

... and he declared. "No sentence shall be written without a bumper
sticker phrase included.. And thus, it was so, and responsible debate
was summarily dismissed.....

--
Wafa free since 2009


Sounds like right-wing wishful thinking on your part. Your response has no
basis in logic or continuity of the discussion, which makes logical sense if
you all you have is fear-based jingoism as your last best hope for the
future.

Pffffttt. Have you read his posts? Nothing but cheap shots, based on Al
Franken/Code Pink style rhetoric. He gets a kick out of ****ing people
off, must have the same thing Harry and Donnie have...
--
Wafa free since 2009

In article , says...

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 1:04 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:


The first question is certainly valid. The current administration has
answered this several times. The problem was lack of responsbility of
ownership of the original invasion. The previous administration didn't get
it right, because they didn't follow the well-established Powell doctrine,
not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, the latter being a war of choice vs. one of
necessity. We're paying the price for the neglect right now in both
places... the former for not really making the commitment (and a war for
which we had a lot of support and justification), the second for going
there
in the first place (where we had practically no support and certainly no
justification).

correct on all counts. now we just have to convince the idiots of the
truth


Actually, we don't. The majority of Americans voted for change, both for
Congress and for the presidency. That change can take place without
compromising the vox populi. I don't believe that their minds can be
changed. It's interesting, actually. I vote and act against my own
self-interest all the time. The same goes for those opposed to true reform.
The difference is that I know I'm doing that. The latter is what fear-based
rhetoric gets done.

Yup, we are so glad that your party knows all of our motives and
thoughts, needs, and desires... Now maybe you can sit in a closed room
with the Unions and decide what we should all do with our lives, oh, and
of course our money.. Man, thank God you are so much smarter than the
rest of us...

--
Wafa free since 2009

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article , says...

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Aug 19, 7:58 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:22 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 18, 6:08 pm, J i m wrote:
wf3h wrote:
go back to your fertilzer/fuel oil bombs.
How's the one's war in Afganistain going?
he's making progress in cleaning up bush's **** up
I thought that Afghanistan was the good war and Iraq was the bad
war.

right. but bush was on the point of losing afghanistan because
he's
an
idiot

What is our goal in Afghanistan? What do we think we are going to
accomplish that no one else in recorded history has accomplished?

i'm guessing you think afghanistan has never been conquered.

and that is wrong.


The first question is certainly valid. The current administration has
answered this several times. The problem was lack of responsbility of
ownership of the original invasion. The previous administration didn't
get
it right, because they didn't follow the well-established Powell
doctrine,
not in Afganistan nor in Iraq, the latter being a war of choice vs.
one
of
necessity. We're paying the price for the neglect right now in both
places... the former for not really making the commitment (and a war
for
which we had a lot of support and justification), the second for going
there
in the first place (where we had practically no support and certainly
no
justification).

... and he declared. "No sentence shall be written without a bumper
sticker phrase included.. And thus, it was so, and responsible debate
was summarily dismissed.....

--
Wafa free since 2009


Sounds like right-wing wishful thinking on your part. Your response has
no
basis in logic or continuity of the discussion, which makes logical sense
if
you all you have is fear-based jingoism as your last best hope for the
future.

Pffffttt. Have you read his posts? Nothing but cheap shots, based on Al
Franken/Code Pink style rhetoric. He gets a kick out of ****ing people
off, must have the same thing Harry and Donnie have...
--
Wafa free since 2009


I'm talking about your post in my comment. You haven't addressed them. You
just continue to point fingers at someone else and continue with jingoism,
as though that's going to qualify as a logical argument.

--
Nom=de=Plume