![]() |
Quote:
|
Let's play a game called "Democrat or Terrorist?"
Unfortunately, the sentence construction and semantic differences make it an easy game. But the point remains. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Well, Noodle, the spooky part to me is that there actually is some truth in a few of those statements. I am far from being an advocate of terrorism, but they do make some good points about what's going on in the US. I feel deeply concerned about what is going on at the National level and the direction this country seems to be turning. The US was once a great republic. I don't like what it seems to be turning into these days. :(
|
Let's play a game called "Bush or Bin Laden".
Guess which person said which quote: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I see immediate differences between your quotes and mine. Mine reflect seething hatred, and the fact that both Democrats and terrorists share a common enemy is telling.
Your quotes are, for the most part, simple platitudes that could've been spoken at any random Rotary Club meeting or high school speech class. You fail to make your point, although I recognize what it is. |
Quote:
|
It's like an alternate universe here sometimes. Did you read what you just posted before you pushed 'send'? I fear greatly that you did.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If two distinctly different groups like the terrorists and Democrats can agree that Bush is bad, then maybe, just maybe, Bush is bad. |
If we had been at war, you would have been hard-pressed to find a Republican trying to undermine the efforts of the commander in chief, at least until the thing was won. That's my opinion, at least.
Not that we would have stuck around long enough to win. Somalia, anyone? |
Wag the dog! Wag the dog!
|
A wagged dog can bite around more than one hundred eighty degrees of arc.
Should I start a new thread of wholly new and original proverbs? |
I for one accept that we are at war, for I do not accept the specious argument that we need to declare a war to be fighting one: history and the Supreme Court both render the verdict that it is not so. The United States has been in about a hundred and fifty armed conflicts/shootouts, and has formally declared a state of war in but five of them. Too, the War Powers Act pretty much codifies the fighting of wars without Congressional declaration.
Democracy's foes are banking on democracies' not lasting out a protracted conflict. I say we must render this strategy sterile, and be better at protracted conflict from the very beginning than democracy's foes are. An enemy of democracy is an enemy of all mankind, wealth and the good life wealth provides, Mom, apple pie with cinnamon, and so forth, no? Why shouldn't mankind therefore stamp these foes out? And should we even care how long it takes or how much stamping we do? That's only a matter of logistics -- bringing up enough bullets to parcel out among the screwballs that insist upon martyrdom. If all of Islam's Idiots fell down dead this afternoon, what opportunities does this open up for the sensible, moderate Muslims? |
Glatt: they won't like Bush's successor, either; I'd bank on it.
|
Yeah, you FOR ONE do.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:54 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.