| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Support for Obama's war
The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals
that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. |
Support for Obama's war
Frogwatch wrote:
The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. |
Support for Obama's war
On 22/03/2011 4:53 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Yep. It is in fact. Obama be a war monger too. So suck it up dim-wit fleabaggers, Obama just said Bush was right so tow THE Obama line now ya all hear..... Didn't big mouth THE Obama "In Debt We Trust!" also say he was going to end the war? Oh well, just another liar politician with no brains, just lies. -- Obama to Congress, GIVE ME ORE MONEY! I need to spill some blood! |
Support for Obama's war
On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote:
Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. let's see. number of dead soliders in libya zero number of soldiers killed by bush 4400 gee. why dont i find your view convincing? Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. bush got us into a trillion dollar war. he's a lunatic |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:45:05 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. no doubt you think this 'cuz he's black. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:43:10 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/03/2011 4:53 PM, Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Yep. It is in fact. Obama be a war monger too. So suck it up dim-wit fleabaggers, Obama just said Bush was right so tow THE Obama line now ya all hear..... Didn't big mouth THE Obama "In Debt We Trust!" also say he was going to end the war? Oh well, just another liar politician with no brains, just lies. number of troops in iraq when bush was pres 150,000 number under obama 50,000 |
Support for Obama's war
On 22/03/2011 5:57 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:45:05 -0600, wrote: On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. no doubt you think this 'cuz he's black. You suggested it. So is that an excuse or a reason? |
Support for Obama's war
On 22/03/2011 5:57 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:43:10 -0600, wrote: On 22/03/2011 4:53 PM, Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Yep. It is in fact. Obama be a war monger too. So suck it up dim-wit fleabaggers, Obama just said Bush was right so tow THE Obama line now ya all hear..... Didn't big mouth THE Obama "In Debt We Trust!" also say he was going to end the war? Oh well, just another liar politician with no brains, just lies. number of troops in iraq when bush was pres 150,000 number under obama 50,000 Well he just dumped a billion or more debt-dollars into Libya. -- In Debt We Trust -- Barrack Obama. |
Support for Obama's war
On Mar 22, 8:20*pm, Gene wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. *Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. *If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. *Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Afghanistan: Bush was right. Iraq: Bush was a 100% gold plated ball bearing idiot. -- Fort Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." * - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage *http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Unless you agree that Bush was right in Iraq then logically you cannot support Obama's war in Libya. However, one should never try to confuse a liberal with logic. Let's try slogans. NO WAR FOR OIL I support the troops, I do not support the war. Bring them home. Yes, pilots are troops. How many civilians have to die for Obama's lust for oil? We should all urge 18 year old kids NOT to sign up for the military because otherwise they will have to fight in Obama's Oil War. |
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
Canuck57 wrote:
On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. No one cares what you think, either, teahadist. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:13:12 -0400, Harryk
wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. He wouldn't support Obama if he were gold plated. Nobody give's a damn about his opinion other than his nutty friends. |
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
On 3/22/2011 7:45 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. Only if the soap box is accompanied by teleprompters. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:20:00 -0400, Gene
wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Afghanistan: Bush was right. Iraq: Bush was a 100% gold plated ball bearing idiot. As is *your* boy in Libya. |
Support for Obama's war
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 10:32:57 -0400, John H
wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 20:20:00 -0400, Gene wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Afghanistan: Bush was right. Iraq: Bush was a 100% gold plated ball bearing idiot. As is *your* boy in Libya. No, as in you and your racist friends. |
Support for Obama's war
On 23/03/2011 3:08 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama?s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. OH, he has walk alright. He has walked away from the frekin' job... Where the hell is the guy while the **** is hitting the fan.. Oh yeah, on vacation, and filling in "the brackets". Sad indeed. Fleabaggers only come in two varieties and one hybrid. Cowards and stupid. Obama is likely a hybrid. Probably hid under hs bed for Japan, Libya, Behrain, Yemen, and when Saudi Bin Ladens called. |
Support for Obama's war
On 23/03/2011 6:06 AM, Despot wrote:
On 3/22/2011 7:45 PM, Canuck57 wrote: The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. Only if the soap box is accompanied by teleprompters. You can sure tell when he is without a telepromter. The man is a flip-flopping fish when that happens. Sort of reminds me of the entertainment industry. With enough money and PR, you can sell anyone even if they have zero tallent. But get them on a stage without the money and tech, they are aweful. Obama is a bought and paid for show man for those that really run the show. And I am sure they are looking for a 2012 replacement. Change the name and do it again Sam... |
Support for Obama's war
In article ,
says... On 23/03/2011 3:08 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama?s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. OH, he has walk alright. He has walked away from the frekin' job... Where the hell is the guy while the **** is hitting the fan.. Oh yeah, on vacation, and filling in "the brackets". Sad indeed. Fleabaggers only come in two varieties and one hybrid. Cowards and stupid. Obama is likely a hybrid. Probably hid under hs bed for Japan, Libya, Behrain, Yemen, and when Saudi Bin Ladens called. LOL! |
Support for Obama's war
On 23/03/2011 3:08 AM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... On 22/03/2011 4:53 PM, Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama?s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Yep. It is in fact. Obama be a war monger too. So suck it up dim-wit fleabaggers, Obama just said Bush was right so tow THE Obama line now ya all hear..... Didn't big mouth THE Obama "In Debt We Trust!" also say he was going to end the war? Oh well, just another liar politician with no brains, just lies. It's over... Obama has checked out on the world. He is just on vacation and it's gone too far, I don't think he can save it now... Good. I had no doubt. To save the US now starts with "Well boys, we have to roll up our sleeves and we have a very long road ahead of us...." |
Support for Obama's war
On 23/03/2011 4:41 AM, Harryk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In article80081ca9-837d-41e6-bbbd-2597befae4c4 @s9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says... On Mar 22, 8:20 pm, wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:53:52 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. Otherwise, we are logically forced to conclude that liberal policies involving deaths of US servicemen is driven purely by US politics. If they will admit that Bush was right, it will be evidence that they can learn from their mistakes and I will then be able to support the war. Until then, I will use Liberals own rhetoric against them. Afghanistan: Bush was right. Iraq: Bush was a 100% gold plated ball bearing idiot. -- Fort Agent 6.00 Build 1186 "Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So, throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover." - Unknown Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://pamandgene.tranquilrefuge.net/boating/the_boat/my_boat.htm Unless you agree that Bush was right in Iraq then logically you cannot support Obama's war in Libya. However, one should never try to confuse a liberal with logic. Let's try slogans. NO WAR FOR OIL I support the troops, I do not support the war. Bring them home. Yes, pilots are troops. How many civilians have to die for Obama's lust for oil? We should all urge 18 year old kids NOT to sign up for the military because otherwise they will have to fight in Obama's Oil War. This is way to honest and logical for those on the left... Frogwatch, Canuck and Snotty Ingersoll - uninformed, ignorant, and full of hate. Sure beats being a fleabagger loaded with greed, envy, carelessness, slander, lack of moral judgement.... you know fleabaggers. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:19:09 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/03/2011 5:57 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:43:10 -0600, wrote: Didn't big mouth THE Obama "In Debt We Trust!" also say he was going to end the war? Oh well, just another liar politician with no brains, just lies. number of troops in iraq when bush was pres 150,000 number under obama 50,000 Well he just dumped a billion or more debt-dollars into Libya. which comes out of DoD money already spent. and he's dumping the war onto the french and norwegians. let them run it. |
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
Canuck57 wrote:
My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. Nope, this is a purely political war of politicians egos. Our governments have become far too big for anyones good. Your posts make you "sound" like a clone of Michelle Bachmann. That's not a compliment. |
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
I_am_Tosk wrote:
In , says... Canuck57 wrote: My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. Nope, this is a purely political war of politicians egos. Our governments have become far too big for anyones good. Your posts make you "sound" like a clone of Michelle Bachmann. That's not a compliment. Who boy.. we are not surprised. You're typical tactic is to attack whoever happens to be in the news cycle that day. Your opinions are completely devoid of thought or integerity, nobody here cares who you and the DNC attack today... It figures that the newsgroup moron, Scotty Ingersoll, would come to the defense of the House of Representatives moron, Michele Bachmann. Is Bachmann in the news cycle today? I'll have to go check... |
Support for Obama's war
On 24/03/2011 11:24 AM, Harryk wrote:
Canuck57 wrote: My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. Nope, this is a purely political war of politicians egos. Our governments have become far too big for anyones good. Your posts make you "sound" like a clone of Michelle Bachmann. That's not a compliment. Don't get her up here in Kanada. Will have to look her up on the web. So how is Biden doing on moving for impeachment? And Ron Paul? Sounds like Obama thinks he does not have to listen to congress. Maybe congress needs to rub Obama nose into the constitution for a bit until Obama understands democracy. |
Support for Obama's war
On 24/03/2011 12:33 PM, Harryk wrote:
I_am_Tosk wrote: In , says... Canuck57 wrote: My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. Nope, this is a purely political war of politicians egos. Our governments have become far too big for anyones good. Your posts make you "sound" like a clone of Michelle Bachmann. That's not a compliment. Who boy.. we are not surprised. You're typical tactic is to attack whoever happens to be in the news cycle that day. Your opinions are completely devoid of thought or integerity, nobody here cares who you and the DNC attack today... It figures that the newsgroup moron, Scotty Ingersoll, would come to the defense of the House of Representatives moron, Michele Bachmann. Is Bachmann in the news cycle today? I'll have to go check... You fleabagers want to criticize Michele Bachmann? First, you might want to clean house of democratic deadwould like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyo3hIOwskI I can only imagine just how stupid the constituants must be to vote for this peace of work. Total emabarasement. If democrats were at all serious, they would boot this trash out of their party. But then again, lots of trash democrats would vote for him.... Proves democrats are stupid. As this guy is dumber than a mushroom. |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 18:17:26 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: On 22/03/2011 5:57 PM, bpuharic wrote: On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:45:05 -0600, wrote: On 22/03/2011 5:13 PM, Harryk wrote: Frogwatch wrote: The price for my support for Obama’s war is the admission by liberals that Bush was right. No one gives a flying f*ck about your support for Obama. I think, except for fleabaggers; we have open contempt for Obama, not support and certainy no respect either. The man is only good at standing on a soap box, all talk and no walk. no doubt you think this 'cuz he's black. You suggested it. So is that an excuse or a reason? you tell me. you're the ku klux clown |
Support for Obama's war
|
Support for Obama's war
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:56:51 -0600, Canuck57
wrote: Agreed, it is more complex, and much of it we have not been told. My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. i hope. that way obama continues to be seen as he is. a man of peace Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. so you think all we have to do is to continue to support crazed dictators and everything's gonna be alright proof? well none. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. go ahead and live in your fantasy world. i suppose in your world, japanese reactors never have partial meltdowns either So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. and you believe this because gaddhafi said it. uh huh |
Support for Obama's war
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 17:24:39 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: Unless you agree that Bush was right in Iraq then logically you cannot support Obama's war in Libya. remind me...how many UN mandates did bush have for iraq? oh. none. However, one should never try to confuse a liberal with logic. Let's try slogans. NO WAR FOR OIL number of troops in libya? zero |
Support for Obama's war
On 24/03/2011 4:17 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 10:56:51 -0600, wrote: Agreed, it is more complex, and much of it we have not been told. My guess is this, Obama tried to talk to Gadafi like he did with Egypt. But Gadafi told Obama to fly a kite. i hope. that way obama continues to be seen as he is. a man of peace Obama is a war monger. Mumbarek was polite. Gadhafi probably told Obama to f- himself. So Obama sends him a cruise missile in an assassination attempt. Obama has a wild ego so he would immediately support his assassination. France, it is easy, just look at the rich aristocracy in France, Total Oil and others for the answer. It is about colonialization. France knows a new succession leader might just do a Venezuela like takeover. Canada has interest there but UK and Canda are just US/UN ftag alongs. so you think all we have to do is to continue to support crazed dictators and everything's gonna be alright proof? well none. The cruise missile says it all. Saudi/Arab, it is a nice diversion to take attention off of the real carnage to unarmed civilians n Yemen and Behrain. Further, Gadafi never really fit in to the Arab oil racketeering cartels so Saudi view him as a victim of convenience. Maybe adafi even told a Bin Laden family member to take a hike. go ahead and live in your fantasy world. i suppose in your world, japanese reactors never have partial meltdowns either You mean like Three Mile Island, the GE designed reactors in Japan, you got 23 exactly like them in your back yard. Even more if you count similar models. You might not want to be so smug. So in the end it is more of politicial grudge war and deception. It isn't about oil, Libya is less than 2%, Canada, Brazil and others can make that up. It isn't about freedom, these are armed rebels with al-Qaeda ties, hardly democracy. and you believe this because gaddhafi said it. uh huh Nope, I follow the energy markets. I even have stocks in companies that do business in Libya. Almost got there myself once back in the early 80's when I used to have to work for a living, but now invest. In fact, I used this to add to my positions in some select buying opportunities. Already made money too. If it is about freedom and democracy, Yemen and Behrain would not be ignored. They are actually worse shape. No, Obama, UN, France and Saudi -- they want Gadafi out so they can keep it a nice subservient colonial place and a little ego satisfaction. |
Support for Obama's war
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:03 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com