How's that "change" working out for you libs?

And he's planning for U.S. to be there eight more years...

I see the bad moon arising.
I see trouble on the way.
I see earthquakes and lightnin'.
I see bad times today.

Don't go around tonight,
Well, it's bound to take your life,
There's a bad moon on the rise.

I hear hurricanes ablowing.
I know the end is coming soon.
I fear rivers over flowing.
I hear the voice of rage and ruin.

Hope you got your things together.
Hope you are quite prepared to die.
Looks like we're in for nasty weather.
One eye is taken for an eye.

(J.C. Fogerty)

"Peace."

-Liberals

CiC's gotta do what he's gotta do. Lets get this thing whipped.

Good I hope the Demorats are happy now. Out of the Republirat frying pan.....then the leftists screw up just as bad.

What is our imaginary mission in this 5th world coutry? I can almost gaurantee failure in whatever MISSION they make up. Time to CSMO-collect stuff and move out....oh yeah, and declare victory.

And he has 6 more months to have all of our troops out of Iraq. How long will you libs go before you admit to yourselves that Obama lied to you many times over? Where is the outrage for the fact that Obama has continued every single one of Bush's domestic policies to combat terrorism? He uses the Patriot Act, wireless wiretapping, signing statements, and now he's escalating a war.

You hated Bush for all of these things yet you maintain your love for your king. Someone please show me any difference between Obama and Bush when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Let's here some more from that fat piece of shit Michael Moore.

30,000 more Troops with orders not to shot civilians. That should boost morale.

#7 I hear crickets

It is good to see President Bush took the time to call acorn back. It is also good to see that acorn recognises the advise of his betters and takes it. For that, I complement him. I wish Bush would have returned the call sooner though. How many soldiers have died while acorn was waiting advise? There is no excuse for failing to return a call in less than 90 days. Bush is going to have to learn to do better if the boy is to have a prayer of success.

I "Hope" the left now realizes that the more things "Change", the more they stay the same.

Fools.

That being said, I support our President's decision to "Surge v.2", since it is the right thing to do.

Maybe there is "Hope" for Barry after all.

To my brothers in theatre, Semper Fi.

This will not sit well with Cindy Sheecannibalwhoeatsherown and her crowd...and since it's so easy to get into the w.h., she'll probably be camping in the Lincoln b/r before it's all over.

I am gladding he at least has made a decession. I would have supported him at this point either way. It was the pussyfooting around that I could not stand.

Obama: Afghanistan focus.
Bush: Iraq and tax cut focus.

Big difference.

And Obama campaigned on concentrating on Afghanistan with possible troop increases and greater funding.

So why are the NOPers whining? Because what else can they do?

I haven't seen any whining on this thread. There have been serious questions as to why you libs support Obama in his quest for a larger war and didn't support Bush in his. It's called hypocrisy and much of it is being shown in this thread.

I believe it is the libs that are whining on this one. The GOP will give him the votes he needs.

The dumb ass lib-trds can't rightfully blame the GOP, or Bush on this one, but their pea-brains are set to cast blame on anyone except their Idol, O'Loudmouth, The self admitted White Mama hater...

Dorky and Starvis are waiting for the talking points, tonight at 8EST. Look for their posts around 8:30.

Only a testicle-free, dickless wonder like Obama can come up with a plan that increases troops but plans for surrender. Why can't this fuckup stand up and say "We will defeat those that attacked us, and we will not leave until the job is done." The pussy-in-chief is wasting American lives. Why doesn't he just pull out the white flag that he carries everywhere and pull the troops out now? Maybe he's just no finished apologizing for America's greatness yet, and won't be until the US is in deeper shit than Afghanistan.

Speaking of obsession, you're either closely monitoring the thread, or you followed me here from the recent comments page. Which is it, Starvis?

Obama should take a page out of Gannon's cum-dumpter's playbook and claim that the Taliban is out of business forever. It's amusing how Chimpy's rimlickers have consistently ignored this whopper every time it appears.

We fight this war against terror on many fronts. Terrorists hide and strike within free societies, so we're draining their bank accounts, disrupting their plans. We're hunting them down one by one until they can no longer threaten America and other free peoples.

Terrorists need places to hide, to plot, and to train, so we're holding their allies, the allies of terror to account. (Applause.) Working with a fine coalition, our military went to Afghanistan, destroyed the training camps of al Qaeda, and put the Taliban out of business forever.

It took 23 posts for a Bush deflection, which is actually longer than most threads. Said deflection also contains a hefty dose of that "accepting" left-wing homophobia! Kudos, Reinheitsgebot!

Let's here some more from that fat piece of shit Michael Moore.

#8 | Posted by fishpaw at 2009-12-01 12:58 PM | Reply |

Apparently that fat dope isn't taking it too well :

On Monday, in an open letter to President Obama, liberal film-maker Michael Moore asks Obama if he really wants to become the "new war president." Moore tells Obama, "It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do."

In fact, Moore writes that Obama should have fired Gen. Stanley McChrystal when the general went public with his call for up to 40,000 additional U.S. troops. "Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in' hate these generals," Moore said.
.

Dorky and Starvis are waiting for the talking points, tonight at 8EST. Look for their posts around 8:30.

#19 | Posted by JOE

Yeah, it looks like the Sarvis is killing time linking pictures while they fill his water bucket.

3 year timetable now. How convenient. Takes you into the next election before ever having to draw down. Re-elect him and maybe he'll fulfill his promise; or perhaps extend it further. Wasn't the original campaign promise to remove all troops in 6 mos.?

What about the contractors? Remove troops from Iraq but replace them with contractors each of which are paid more than most CEO's.

How long before the illegal bombing of Pakistan starts?

Actually, Joe, I'm not waiting for "talking points." I'm waiting for the unveiling of the policy by the guy who's going to be held responsible for it. That would be the president. (And as I've said many times on the DR, I'm very unenthusiastic about further committments to Afghanistan.) But, please, keep blathering on, Joe. At least you're doing something more than just sitting around, pretending to be a lawyer. Or are you?

Actually, Joe, I'm not waiting for "talking points." I'm waiting for the unveiling of the policy by the guy who's going to be held responsible for it. That would be the president.

And then the talking points will start to trickle down to the sheeple, at which time Starvis, Mohron, Dorky, etc. will get their witty ripostes.

I'm going to play it cool until Andrew SullHIVan tells me what I think about this.
-Starvis

PS-Gawwwwwwwd!

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter

Let me see if I've got this right. Obama's going to talk about Afghanistan tonight but it's not okay to wait until he does so before blurting out an opinion about what he hasn't yet said, and if you bring it up after he says what he hasn't yet said and your comment disagrees with Rightofreality's worm's eye view it's a "talking point."

That about it?

And then the talking points will start to trickle down to the sheeple, at which time Starvis, Mohron, Dorky, etc. will get their witty ripostes.

Posted by Rightocenter at 2009-12-01 02:26 PM | Reply

You aren't very intelligent are You ROC?? For if You were You wouldn't make fun of My name by adding letters to it. No ROC You are just a sad sack of shit like most of You right wingers. If You used Your real Last name around here I wouldn't denigrate it like You have mine. But You have no class that's for sure. Worthless piece of shit.

Larry

while you're down there, why don't you go ahead and give him a nice, sloppy blow job.
#33 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Two reasons:

1. Not my style
2. You beat me to it.

Hey Sarvis, they're going to tell you to blame it on Rumsfeld. Now get defending, toady.

It just fucking dawned on me.

Cheney is still in charge. Now, that's hope.

Oh, I definitely blame the quagmire on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and any of the other neocons you liplocked for eight years, Wissy.

Question is, what now? For you, it's still the chickenhawk strut. For Obama, well, he gets the tough decisions. And this is one where I don't agree with him, if what this article says is the policy he's coming up with is actually the policy.

So I guess you get to defend him now. I mean, once you riiighties finish checking one another out for fleas and doing your circlejerk.

Ohhh, what a grand come back..... color me distraught and anguished...or maybe just bored.

Larry-

Chill out, I have been calling you that for years...

Doc-

Never stopped you from accusing the Right of the same thing during the Bush years:

Let me see if I've got this right. [Bush]'s going to talk about [Iraq] tonight but it's not okay to wait until he does so before blurting out an opinion about what he hasn't yet said, and if you bring it up after he says what he hasn't yet said and your comment disagrees with [the DR Left's] worm's eye view it's a "talking point."

Sucks being on the other side, doesn't it.

-How's that "change" working out for you libs?

This is just Obama fulfilling another campaign promise; to prioritize making Afghanistan unsafe for al Qaeda and getting out asap there after.

And it is definitely change from the Bush policy of ignoring the situation and letting it deteriorate into chaos.

GW was given additional troop requests form field commanders, for over 20K troops, in August of last year, which he ignored. Obama fulfilled that request in March of this year.

It will be interesting to hear the President's rationale and the plans that he lays out, but he's had the same position all along.

It will be interesting to hear the President's rationale and the plans that he lays out, but he's had the same position all along.

#42 | Posted by Corky at 2009-12-01 02:40 PM | Reply

Uh huh. That's why it's taken him 10 months to act on it.

color me distraught and anguished...or maybe just bored.
#40 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Don't forget "stoopid."

It's uncalled for too ROC. But I shouldn't be suprirsed by Your fuckstain self now should I??

Larry

-the chickenhawk strut

Official Dance of the Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney and George "But, my daddy!" Bush led Neo-GOP.

But then, had GW not pulled out early in Astan, he might have missed Uncle Karl's August "product roll-out" of a new war and a new War President.

And he's planning for U.S. to be there eight more years...

#2 | Posted by nanc at 2009-12-01 12:42 PM

#43

When you complete your revision of campaign history book, send me a copy. TP is scarce during a war.

Wow, Doc, I sure hope you're not an actual "doc." I'd be afraid where you'd put your stethoscope. How's that online degree treating you? But then again, its seem apparent.

Which branch of the military did Obama serve in? I must have missed that part on his resume. Was it after his college trip to Pakistan and before his days as a community hustler?

This now makes 55,000 troops he's sent in to harms way. Not to mention the strikes he's authorized in Pakistan. He sure does seem to like flexing our military's muscles.

How long before the illegal bombing of Pakistan starts?

As soon as America starts sending its own ammo to Afghanistan instead of using Pakistani bombs and ammo.

Which means, never. LOL

"And he's planning for U.S. to be there eight more years..."

#2 | Posted by nanc at 2009-12-01 12:42 PM

Not to mention the strikes he's authorized in Pakistan.

The strikes WE have authorized in Pakistan, you mean. That too, no more than a few hundred yards inside the borders.

Pakistan can and does veto Predator missions.... or task them.

Obama does nothing except bore people to death with his yapping.

the DR. Right would give him shit if he didn't send troops, and they give him shit that he will.

they give him shit if he talks... they give him shit if he bombs.

yall don't have any real stance other then opposite of obama.

funny and sad at the same time.

"Obama wants Afghan war over in 3 years, officials say"

As retired Pakistani General Hamid Gul sez, the US can only last 2-3 years more in Afghanistan, no more.

They are following the exact same pattern as the Soviets before they were kicked out.

I have a stance. Win the fucking war. Sending more troops but planning a surrender does not win a war. Obama is a fucking pussy, simply cannot commit to a goal because he is too busy being a community organizing politician. ACORN obvious still has his nuts.

Obama wants Afghan war over in 3 years, officials say"
December 1, 2009 1:00 p.m. EST
www.cnn.com

#52 | Posted by Zatoichi

If you apply his time formula used to close Gitmo, we'll be there 13 years.

Salad Tosser thinks it's A-OK that we bomb his country and kill his fellow pigpens because it's only a few hundred meters inside the Crapistan border...

Tosser thinks it's A-OK that we bomb his country and kill his fellow pigpens

Pakistan tasks your Predators, my boy. LOL

We bomb taliban and afghans living in the border areas.

Normal, real, Pakistanis are by and large, not touched.

I see, you have much to learn.

A Pakistani controlled Predator killed Baitullah Mehsud, who was wanted in Pakistan only. America has no reason to kill him. LOL

You really have NO IDEA how the game is played around here.

Obama has given up control of EVERYTHING, son. Really.

"Win the fucking war. "

what does that mean?

you mean defeat the taliban?

hahahahhah

you do realize moron that NO ONE has won the fucking war in afganistan ever in its entire history.

our job was to find and kill osama. we're there for no reason now except letting american's die.

probably cause osama is dead... just like the pakistani's have been telling us for years now.

we should leave... let the taliban take over... sell them the internet and in a generation or two... their own children will moderate the country.

Don't expect any miracles out of Obama.... I can promise you, you will not see any.

we should leave... let the taliban take over... sell them the internet and in a generation or two... their own children will moderate the country.

And that is exactly what will end up happening anyway. LOL

Americans haven't a clue when they are asked "what is the mission objective"?

All they can mumble is "Democracy....".

What utter nonsense. After the massive cheating in the Afghan elections, WHAT "democracy"? LOL

3 more years, you say? How have politicians been, historically, when it comes to following timetables? And why are we there? What are we doing? I guess I'll have to wait and hear it tonight. I predict what I hear will piss me off.

"Don't expect any miracles out of Obama.... I can promise you, you will not see any."

impossible is impossible, even if we had the greatest president of all time

3 more years, you say? How have politicians been, historically, when it comes to following timetables?

You don't get it.

Military experts (ours) agree that America can only survive in Afghanistan for 2-3 years no more.

Whether it wants to or not, it will have to leave or get kicked out.

Obama, has obviously chosen the sane approach... that US will leave instead of getting kicked out. LOL

This way, they can pretend some kind of victory.

And yet ANOTHER half assed political measure by the O man.

What is the difference between sending 30 and 40 Thousand...EXCEPT your Generals ASKED you to send 40?

If 10K would keep the other 30 safer - why not agree and send them?

This "decision" shows how weak this worthless bastard really is.

Great, the two know-it-alls from some shithole ending in "-stan" have showed up. Time to find a new thread.

Kilfferd,

As I said earlier, I support the acorn in this matter. I applaud him for listening to Bush's advice. I think it is about time and hope that he will consult with Bush more often and do what Bush suggests.

The delusions of the goat herder are hilarious. In his world, Pakistan is the only player.

"There have been serious questions as to why you libs support Obama in his quest for a larger war and didn't support Bush in his"

Because Bush's larger war involved invading a country that had no involvement with attacking us on 9-11 and did not present a threat to our security. Obama is doing what he said he would do when we elected him, which is to shift the focus back to Afghanistan, where it should have been all along.

We would have been done in Afghanistan years ago if Bush would have listened to his Generals that were calling for more troops on that front. Instead he forgot about it as soon as he got his chance to go after Saddam and win the Daddy's #1 Son ribbon.

I wish Obama would have just brought them home because I believe Bush already lost that war but the fact remains that I voted for him knowing that his view was different than mine. I like that he is laying out an exit strategy and that the target date is 2011.

If I do not see significant progress towards that goal by that date then I will start sending contributions to a primary challenger.

It will be interesting to hear the President's rationale and the plans that he lays out, but he's had the same position all along.

you mean like when he wanted to cut off new funding for Afghanistan 2 years ago?

This is why we are in Afghanistan.

TESTIMONY BY JOHN J. MARESCA

VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNOCAL CORPORATION

TO

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

FEBRUARY 12, 1998

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Link to Maresca's testimony is below --

Fucker aught to pull out and save our Countrymen/Women's lives. Dubya FUBARRED it. We don't need another Vietnam like vet memorial just because our collective dicks are oversized. What a grand Mistake Obama.

Larry

How's that "change" working out for you libs?

#1 | Posted by Redman at 2009-12-01 12:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

???

All through his campaign he stated that Afghanistan was the war we needed to fight.

This should be no surprise to anyone.....except the idiots.

How's that working out for you?

The Washington establishment is criminally insane. If you support this insanity, then you are just as insane. I don't know what else to say.

The delusions of the goat herder are hilarious. In his world, Pakistan is the only player.

The delusions of the wheelchairborne cancer patient are hilarious.

In his world, the US is winning in Afghanistan. LOL

Great, the two know-it-alls from some shithole ending in "-stan" have showed up. Time to find a new thread.

If you can't counter anything I say, logically.... might as well run off. hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Christine what have I been saying since I arived here to the retort some 6 years ago. The whole Global War on Terror is just some and mirrors for the actual war for natural resources. The only problem I have is I don't think we have a right to them beings they are under someone elses feet.

Larry

"As I said earlier, I support the acorn in this matter"

as much as i disagree with you on many things...

i like the nickname

finally obama gets a real nickname.

chimpy was bush

messiah is just silly.

the acorn.
i like.

now draw me a picture of obama with an acorn shaped body.

"Great, the two know-it-alls from some shithole ending in "-stan" have showed up. Time to find a new thread."

the united states of americastan????

cause dude, thats where i'm from.

We need to keep peace in that part of the world

No, you need to create as much trouble and instability as you can get away with.

That is why you are in Afghanistan without an obvious reason or mission-objective.

The American way is to shake the apple tree and hope a few apples fall out.

Obama looks and acts more like a Chimp than Bush ever did.

So if anyone is a zoo animal........

All through his campaign he stated that Afghanistan was the war we needed to fight.

#75 | Posted by COMMONSENSE at 2009-12-01 03:48 PM | Reply

Then what took so long to decide on whether or not to send in more troops, shit-heap?
To pretend this has been his plan all along is laughable. All the while he was being indecisive, all we heard was how he doesn't want to rush in to anything. Then when he finally makes a decision, you cheerleaders show up and pretend that this was his plan all along.
Are you really that fucking stupid?

The American way is to shake the apple tree and hope a few apples fall out.

#82 | Posted by Tosser at 2009-12-01 03:54 PM | Reply | Flag: DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BUT IT SOUNDED COOL

All through his campaign he stated that Afghanistan was the war we needed to fight.

Bush said the war on terror could last 10 years. He continued to emphasize the importance of this throughout his tenure.

I don't remember anybody on the left placing any value on that.

Christine what have I been saying since I arived here to the retort some 6 years ago. The whole Global War on Terror is just some and mirrors for the actual war for natural resources.

The only problem I have is I don't think we have a right to them beings they are under someone elses feet.

Larry

#79 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-01 03:50 PM

I understand your point, Larry, but it's not which country OWNS the oil under their feet, it's the countries they choose to sell their oil to.

I don't want Afghanistan giving sole control of its oil routes and access to oil in the Caspian solely to Communist China and that's what could happen if we don't get in there first. I don't trust Communist China -- not with the gigantic military build-up China is in the midst of doing.

DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BUT IT SOUNDED COOL

It means creating opportunities through "direct action", even though that "action" might be harmful for law abiding folk.

It also means Americans have a thing for apples since George Washington chopped down his neighbor's apple tree.

I don't want Afghanistan giving sole control of its oil routes and access to oil in the Caspian solely to Communist China and that's what could happen if we don't get in there first. I don't trust Communist China -- not with the gigantic military build-up China is in the midst of doing.

Posted by CalifChris at 2009-12-01 03:56 PM | Reply

How arrogant of You Christine. What if I felt that way about Your property. You pitched one big huge hissy fit when I said You would regret giving those USMC lockers away. Think about if I were to tell You who You could buy or sell Your goods to. You would come to Kansas and put a bullet tween the eyes. What gives us the right to dictate to any Country where their natural resources are sold to??

Larry

tosser, that was a cherry tree... not an apple tree.

Johnny appleseed... a made up character went around the colonial america's and planted apples

All we have here is obama fulfiling a campaign promise.

Nothing more nothing less

you can agree or disagree with his decision but he is doing what he said he would do.

Righties are bitches.

Sending in more troops is the right decision - sending in less than what the Generals ask for is playing politics with the soldiers and the mission.

What was all that deliberation about? Why would he leave the troops that are currently there undermanned if this is what he planned to do all along? Why did it take 10 months to announce this if it was always his plan to surge?

You know, those pesky questions that remain unanswered.

This will not sit well with Cindy Sheecannibalwhoeatsherown and her crowd...and since it's so easy to get into the w.h., she'll probably be camping in the Lincoln b/r before it's all over.

#13 | Posted by nanc

class act there skank insulting the mother of a dead us hero.

its called deliberation, something we could have used more of in the past 8 years.

"Sending in more troops is the right decision - sending in less than what the Generals ask for is playing politics with the soldiers and the mission."

legitamate question.

should be asked.

Man the "Hope America Fails" Defeaticans are out in force today. I don't remember any of them caring how long (at least a hundred years was great) a Republican President took to win. Or even if he did. They were pretty happy when Bush decided timetables didn't mean the terrorists win after all and signed his Peace with Honorable Mention II deal with Iran, err, Maliki. Then again since no Republican has won a war since old Honest Abe, maybe they were looking for anything being better than Nixon.

Hopefully Obama will show the same brains he has shown before and set a realistic timetable for ending the war in afghanistan. Of course, with the anti-war cut and run conservatives, anything short of a Ronnie Reagan Beirut bugout white flag surrender will be too long. Cheer up, America hating conservatives, you'll get to cheer some more KIAs before he's done. I doubt they'll reach Bush's KIA numbers, but like the Bush Administration said, dead Americans are just numbers.

Just think, if you hadn't voted for Bush, you'd already have been forced to watch two victory parades, one in Baghdad and the other in Kabul. While worrying where the budget surpluses should go.

and for the record, your undying support for the failed policies of the worst C-in-C in history makes anything you say as relevant as Iranian President Amandapajamas' lox recipes.

sending in less than what the Generals ask for is playing politics with the soldiers and the mission.

What would you call Bush's sending none of the troops the Generals asked for? Treason?

btw-there was a range of numbers on the table, from 15,000 to 80,000. So far, this makes 50,000.

Of course, with the anti-war cut and run conservatives, anything short of a Ronnie Reagan Beirut bugout white flag surrender will be too long.

#99 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-12-01 04:15 PM

That post speaks for itself!

not with the gigantic military build-up China is in the midst of doing.

China's entire military budget is less than the Pentagon's cost overruns. Better hide under the bed with 101 and aflac, if the muslims don't get your cookies, the Chinese will!

its called deliberation, something we could have used more of in the past 8 years.

#97 | Posted by truthhurts

So according to a brickhead like you, he deliberated 4 months on a campaign promise while the Generals on the ground pulled their pud. You clowns have more excuses for this chuckle head...

tosser, that was a cherry tree... not an apple tree.

Oh.

Johnny appleseed... a made up character went around the colonial america's and planted apples

Yes, I remember the Disney cartoon movie I saw as a wee lad.

its called deliberation, something we could have used more of in the past 8 years.

#97 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009-12-01 04:13 PM | Reply

Yet he didn't deliberate the 17,000 you were bragging about him sending in the spring?
You ball-washers are hilarious. Obama could kick you in your pussy and you'd thank him and ask for more.

Why not just admit that whatever he says is the right thing, regardless of what he actually does?

ummmmm Nnnnnooooooo

he promised 10,000 during campaign,

sent 17,000 in spring.

fulfilled campaign promise

he spent 4 months figuring (hopefully) how to get the US out of the mess that bush created, thankfully we have a president who thinks before making decisions of this import.

Yet he didn't deliberate the 17,000 you were bragging about him sending in the spring?

hmmmmm he had been deliberating since at least July 2008 what he would do when he got into office.

innaugriated Jan 2009 March into April sends in the 17,000 troops, sounds like sound deliberation to me.

What was all that deliberation about? Why would he leave the troops that are currently there undermanned if this is what he planned to do all along? Why did it take 10 months to announce this if it was always his plan to surge?

It's called planning, 101. I realize you preferred Bush's we don't need no stinkin' plan, Jeebus woll save us strategy, but some people want to see more than failure. You know, like how many, where, doing what and what can we drag out of NATO so we're not doing everything like in Iraq.

Truthurts-there's been nothing like afghanistan today to show the Drudge righties never cared for the troops or the country, only for the Party. I really don't remember a single one of them commenting when Bush refused to send the 20,000 desperately needed troops in, requested long before he left office.

Funny that.

I don't want Afghanistan giving sole control of its oil routes and access to oil in the Caspian solely to Communist China... -- #87 | Posted by CalifChris

So anyone who doesn't want us selling our goods to Europeans has a right to send a flotilla up the Potomac?

Just think, if you hadn't voted for Bush, you'd already have been forced to watch two victory parades, one in Baghdad and the other in Kabul. While worrying where the budget surpluses should go.

you have treaded into jackass territory with those delusions. I will give you enough credit to just assume you are stirring the pot for the hell of it.

You ball-washers are hilarious. Obama could kick you in your pussy and you'd thank him and ask for more.

Why not just admit that whatever he says is the right thing, regardless of what he actually does?

#106 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Funny I hadnt commented on whether I thought supported this or not. I was just pointing out the facts of the matter.

I do think the question should be asked as to what we are attempting to accomplish in Afghanistan. Like Iraq we have mission creep. It was to go after Al Queda. Now we are fighting the Taliban, which is essentially a political party in Afghanistan. We should be asking what we are doing there.

So the ones yammering for more troops, hasty decisions to send more troops, saying 30k troops is not enough, and the ones opposed to timetables are "anti-war cut and run?"

LOD-only when its not a Republican in the WH. When's the last time you saw a rightie post about Iraq, other than celebrating a KIA? Certainly not since january.

#109 Northguy

or condemning bush for not following his general's troop number shinseki (or whatever his name was) said we needed 300,000 troops.

seems righties could learn a lesson on that mistake, but NOOOOOOOOOO

I understand your point, Larry, but it's not which country OWNS the oil under their feet, it's the countries they choose to sell their oil to.

I don't want Afghanistan giving sole control of its oil routes and access to oil in the Caspian solely to Communist China and that's what could happen if we don't get in there first. I don't trust Communist China -- not with the gigantic military build-up China is in the midst of doing.

#87 | Posted by CalifChris at

and all hitler needed was some lebensraum

What was all that deliberation about? -- #95 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Will a larger occupation simply fuel more anti-American hostility and breed more terrorism, as it did in Iraq?

Will be interesting to see if Obama addresses this in his speech.

What are we seeking to accomplish in Afghanistan?

is Al Queda even still there?

Why are we fighting the Taliban?

Does the Taliban pose a threat to our national security?

Ahhhh fuck it-occupy and bomb! YEEEE HAAAA BROWN PEOPLE IN COTTON WITH FUNNY NAMES GONNA DIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE

LOD-only when its not a Republican in the WH.

#113 | Posted by northguy3 at 2009-12-01 04:28 PM

Will a larger occupation simply fuel more anti-American hostility and breed more terrorism, as it did in Iraq?

Will be interesting to see if Obama addresses this in his speech.

great question and point.

My personal feelings have always been that it is a waste of time to attempt to "reform" muslim countries that seemingly prefer to be ruled by some sort of dictator or theocracy. I certainly understand the effort to combat terrorism and maintain national security but the occupation of Iraq for the purposes of changing that place was just dumb. I don't really see Afghanistan any differently.

A lot of liberals have been extremely upset at the waste of money and lives over our occupation of the middle east in the past 8 years. It seems somewhat suspect at best for them to now support more money and blood to be spent there (the fact that he promised in his campaign is a worthless talking point)

Will a larger occupation simply fuel more anti-American hostility and breed more terrorism, as it did in Iraq?

Will be interesting to see if Obama addresses this in his speech.

#116 | Posted by Phoenix at 2009-12-01 04:30 PM | Reply

Perhaps that was what the deliberation was about, but who knows.
Everyone knows (or should have known) that a larger footprint in Afghanistan was a bad idea. We always talk about learning from others' mistakes, yet we ignore the lesson the Soviets learned of having a larger footprint.

You've got to love people trotting out bluster from Obama about how more troops were the answer as far back as July of 2008, yet he didn't send them until April. Then, he apparently didn't send enough. So he dickered around for 7 more months, finally announcing he was sending in 30,000 more (his hand picked General had asked for more a while back).

Miraculously, this seems to satisfy his sycophants. Obama spoke, and they have followed.

Obama's strategy through the ages:

Obama to General Washington: I'll give you a few more soldiers, but darn it, no one has ever won here before, so if you're not done right quick we're pulling out.

Obama to General Grant: OK, one more little army and you're through. Nobody's ever beaten Lee before, so hurry up before the voting public turns on me. Then, to the public: I guarantee that I'll pull the troops out of the South within three years. I'm sure we will have won by then.

Obama to General Eisenhower: OK, General, a few more soldiers for this D-Day thing, but if you haven't whipped that little munchkin in a few months I'm bringing everyone home.

Of course the second two would have never happened, Obama would have surrendered to the British long before Yorktown.

Funny bush would have been fighting for the british, would have been fighting for the south and would have been a draft dodger in WW 2.

But then again, its seem apparent.
#49 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Yeah, sure, whatever.

#121 | Posted by SpokaneJim | Flag: Mistakes "Daft" for "Deft"

but but but Bush Bush Bush. One of these days you saps are going to take a step back and realize this guy doesn't know his ass from his ankle. The great thing is every day more and more Americans are smelling the stink.

Funny bush would have been fighting for the british, would have been fighting for the south and would have been a draft dodger in WW 2.

that is actually not that hard to believe.

...yet we ignore the lesson the Soviets learned of having a larger footprint. -- #120 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Geez, that was all the way back in 1980. We're not even learning lessons from Iraq!

...sycophants. Obama spoke, and they have followed. -- #120 | Posted by 101Chairborne

You have a lot more patience than I do. I gave up on the worshippers during the primary season.

An in reality Obama would have been organizing for Stalin and apologizing to Hitler and Hirohito for America's entrance into the war.

We are not in Afghanistan to find bin Laden, nor to overthrow the Taliban, nor to have a "bigger footprint."

We are in Afghanistan for ONE reason only -- to keep control of, and access to, the Caspian oil pipeline and to make sure the warring factions in that country don't disrupt the flow of oil to the U.S.

Like it or not -- them's the facts.

Read the link in my #73 and then tell me I'm wrong.

The American people still believe they have any voice in government.

Ignorant serfs.
One word...owned.

And then the talking points will start to trickle down to the sheeple, at which time Starvis, Mohron, Dorky, etc. will get their witty ripostes.

#31 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2009-12-01 02:26 PM

Given the hate and vitriol that Troofie and NG3 have responded with, they aren't waiting for any other talking points then "this was his plan all along."

Sorry if I offended you both by not including you in the recitation of the "usual suspects."

Califchris,

would you consider the uninterrupted supply of oil to be a matter of national security?

...it is a waste of time to attempt to "reform" muslim countries...#119 | Posted by eberly

I would have completed that sentence with "...by occupying them and killing lots of civilians."

...that seemingly prefer to be ruled by some sort of dictator or theocracy. #119 | Posted by eberly

...as opposed to the U.S.'s preferred leaders like Karzai, the Shah, Hussein...

Where they should been aince 9/11.

Fucking Bush.

as opposed to the U.S.'s preferred leaders like Karzai, the Shah, Hussein...

you certainly can't defend those appointments.

Unless you hate Bush so much that you are willing to defend leaving Hussein alone. I read that many times here several years ago.

#129 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-12-01 04:54 PM | Reply | Flag: Believes anything that justifies military insanity.

Take heed Chris. Obama is just digging a deeper hole. Look on a map and notice how Iran is encircled. This action is on path to be the mother of all debacles.

GOOD!!! Im very happy for Obamas decision to continue the war and press on for victory. A couple of questions I hope he will answer me during the speech. What are the conditions of victory? And will he stay committed to any decisions made to ensure conditions of Victory are met.

Of course like Iraq many DRs here will not care about Victory or anything it takes to win. According to them this war is already lost, just like Iraq. Face it LIBs are a bunch of losers. Go Obama Kick Ass!!!

GOOD!!! Im very happy for Obamas decision to continue the war and press on for victory. A couple of questions I hope he will answer me during the speech. What are the conditions of victory? And will he stay committed to any decisions made to ensure conditions of Victory are met.

Of course like Iraq many DRs here will not care about Victory or anything it takes to win. According to them this war is already lost, just like Iraq. Face it LIBs are a bunch of losers. Go Obama Kick Ass!!!

Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-12-01 05:14 PM | Reply

Why do You want to see more lives wasted CMBELL73?? Is Your ego and self pride that great that You would rather try and safe face by putting more troops into harms way than to salvage what we can of our Countrymen/Women and come home. DO WE NEED ANOTHER 58 THOUSAND NAMES ON ANOTHER WALL????

Larry

...you certainly can't defend those appointments. Unless you hate Bush so much that you are willing to defend leaving Hussein alone. -- #135 | Posted by eberly

We should have left Hussein alone because there was never any chance that we could get in and out for the $20 billion (and minimal casualties) Rumsfeld estimated it would cost, or leave Iraq in better shape than we found it.

Also, as despicable national leaders go, Hussein was a piker.

We should have left Hussein alone because there was never any chance that we could get in and out for the $20 billion...

Oh, and then there were the easily foreseen geopolitical consequences -- empowering Iran and inflaming anti-American sentiment.

This is a disgusting subsidy for the Unocal pipeline, taken by BushCo from Argentine, costing thousands of American lives and possibly trillions of dollars.

$30 billion per year going foward just for the additional troops. The current expenditure level is far worse.

Doesn't it make more sense to just give the money away to US citizens as gasoline vouchers for the rest of their lives? WHy do so much murder and destruction?

LARRY, Like I said time,time again. I dont want these troops to feel like their brother in arms died in vain. Im know Veitnam vets would love to have that peace of mind, they believed they could win. Its too bad Partisans care more about themselves than a militarys man peace of mind

Thats why my support confuses you. You think like a Partisan Hack. To me it doesnt matter who is President and what Party they are from. As long as they finish what America started (not what the president started you hack) no matter how tough the fight. I wish Obama the best, he has my full support. I he wants to committ our entire military to this fight that will bring me a big smile.

Larry's a partisan hack for opposing the president's policy here whom he voted for and whose party he's a member of?

LOL

Gotta love the ole DR

LIVE, Larrys a hack because he is always party first.The Democrat Party is not for this move.Obama might be a Democrat, but that doesnt make the lock step Libs for it. If you have an doubt start reading from the top of the thread

I wonder how "Code Pink" will react. Marching in DC with coffins draped in flags.

Well--Obama finally made a decision.

I just don't want to hear some mamsy pansy excuses about it wasn't his fault, blah blah blah.

Or that he wants to leave--a timetable bs. Shows weakness.

Just tell us he's sending in the troops to obtain VICTORY!!!

Can he say the word 'Victory'? There is no other way for this to end except with 'Victory'.

I back him on this 'surge' to get the people of Afghanistan their destiny to be free once and for all from the ideological fascists of the taliban and AQ.

There should be a plan worked out to coordinate with Pakistan as well.

Just go do it!

LIVE, Larrys a hack because he is always party first.The Democrat Party is not for this move.Obama might be a Democrat, but that doesnt make the lock step Libs for it. If you have an doubt start reading from the top of the thread

Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-12-01 05:36 PM | Reply

Kiss My mother fucking ass cmbell73 Unlike You I care about My COuntyryfolk. Unlike You I am more worried about My Countryfolks lives than trying to save face and be a damned dick. Unlike You I give a damn about LIVES and not some bullshit tripe like You CMBELL73. You dig that ASSHOLE??????

Larry

Larry's a partisan hack for opposing the president's policy here whom he voted for and whose party he's a member of?

LOL

Gotta love the ole DR

#143 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-12-01 05:32 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Yeah like how does that work anyways?? I am opposed to what the President (one I vehamentally fell in love with as a candidate and proudly voted.) for makes Me a hack?? How does that work LoD??? I don't understand it.

Larry

Larry

calm down and take your meds

Califchris,

would you consider the uninterrupted supply of oil to be a matter of national security?

#132 | Posted by eberly at 2009-12-01 04:59 PM

Yes, I sure would.

How's that "change" working out for you libs?

#1 | Posted by Redman

Obama was elected on the promise that he would add more troops to Afghanistan, exit Iraq with all due haste and reform health care.

Now that he's doing all these things the resident rtards are acting like he's pulling a fast one.

They are a pretty confused bunch these days.

They are still pro-war no matter what cos that's how they've bene propagandised.

But they are also anti-Obama largely fer the same reason.

They should prolly all go sit quietly in a corner somewhere till they figure out where they stand.

Be Well.

the President (one I vehamentally fell in love with as a candidate and proudly voted.)

it's amazing how sheep allow themselves to "fall in love" with a fucking politician.

LARRY, Like I said time,time again. I dont want these troops to feel like their brother in arms died in vain. Im know Veitnam vets would love to have that peace of mind, they believed they could win. Its too bad Partisans care more about themselves than a militarys man peace of mind

Thats why my support confuses you. You think like a Partisan Hack. To me it doesnt matter who is President and what Party they are from. As long as they finish what America started (not what the president started you hack) no matter how tough the fight. I wish Obama the best, he has my full support. I he wants to committ our entire military to this fight that will bring me a big smile.

#142 | Posted by cmbell73 at 2009-12-01 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

I may be a freaking nutcase at times but Pray Tell why would someone go and send another soul into a meat grinder just because the first guy in it died in vein?? I mean really that takes some mental gymnastics to qualify. Because Johnny died jumping off a bridge You feel Tom has to do the same because Johnny wouldn't want to feel like He died in vien?? Only a stupid ass would send more people into a mistake hoping for another outcome than more mistake. I am sorry CMBELL73. If I died for a mistake I don't want someone following me into the depths of hell. SAVE YOURSELF for Christ sake.

Larry

Once you start defining other peoples national resources as part of your national security you invite other nations to share the same world view from their own perspective.

Be Well.

it's amazing how sheep allow themselves to "fall in love" with a fucking politician.

#152 | Posted by eberly at 2009-12-01 05:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

This proves to Me You have no heart.

Larry

Now that he's doing all these things the resident rtards are acting like he's pulling a fast one.

how can anybody think he "pulled a fast one" when he took so much time (which I didn't have a problem with)

who?

Thanks Chris.

Now, do you think Obama and the leadership in DC believe it is a matter of national security?

Once you start defining other peoples national resources as part of your national security you invite other nations to share the same world view from their own perspective.

okay. but I pose the same question to you then Spud.

This proves to Me You have no heart.

no it proves I have a brain and use it rather than my heart when determining what faith I place in career politicians.

"would you consider the uninterrupted supply of oil to be a matter of national security?"

The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, has no right to 25% of the world's oil. If the U.S. has made that into some entitlement necessary to "national security" and a justification for imperialist adventures, then it needs to rethink its energy consumption.

The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, has no right to 25% of the world's oil. If the U.S. has made that into some entitlement necessary to "national security" and a justification for imperialist adventures, then it needs to rethink its energy consumption.

Fair point. But it isn't a answer to the question. In the eyes of our leadership ( and I am going back 30 years and looking forward also) is the uninterrupted supply of oil a matter of national security?

gotta go...check back later.

LARRY, You declared Iraq was a loss from the get go. When Iraq was starting to turn around you still declared it a loss. When all facts pointed to us winning in Iraq, you stated we Morally loss the war.

LARRY,You dont have a clue on the out come of Afganistan, just like Iraq. But that does not stop you in rooting for a loss.Because your Partisan Hack logic cant think of no other way

God Bless Obama Go Kick Some Ass

Sorry CMBELL73 Iraq will always be a loss for the United States because when You take the Law into Your own hands You lose and that is specifically true about the United States with it's Mantra about Rule of Law. I am sorry that You can not grasp this. Iraq is a loss for us. As far as Afghanistan goes Dubya fucked it up when He sent those troops into Iraq instead of keeping them into Afghanistan. I am sorry that You have such a hard time understanding this. We need to come home unless of course You want another wall with another 58,000 names on it. Is that some more faux American pride showing CMBELL73???? I most certainly say so.

Larry

The only thing we should be doing in Afghanistan is preparing to get out. There's nothing we can achieve there in the next three years that we didn't already achieve in the past six.

It is dangerous lunacy to believe that you can impose representative democracy on Middle Eastern nations through force. If the people of Iraq and Afghanistan want to live free, they will make that happen on their own. And if they don't, there's nothing we can do for them to make it happen.

Bring the troops home.

Bring the troops home.

Posted by rcade at 2009-12-01 06:18 PM | Reply

Muahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs RCADE. Oh and that is a Platonic kiss. I am NOT coming onto You. FOR THE RECORD.

Larry

do you think Obama and the leadership in DC believe it is a matter of national security?

Undoubtedly.

Every leader in DC from Ike on down has thought so.

R or D simply don't matter there.

The planet is on a collision course towards a global resource war.

America takes what it wants, what it needs, because it can right now.

Tommorow may be a different story.

Be Well.

Muahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhs RCADE. Oh and that is a Platonic kiss. I am NOT coming onto You. FOR THE RECORD.

OK, but keep your hands where I can see them.

The only thing we should be doing in Afghanistan is preparing to get out.

Bring the troops home.

#163 | Posted by rcade at 2009-12-01 06:18 PM | Reply |

I completely agree....

For totally different reasons of course......that being said...

Bring them home Now
.

He didn't start the war.
He didn't start the deficit.
He didn't even crash Tiger's car.

He does speak in sentences.
He does have an exit timetable.
He does approach health care reform.

Let's not compare 8 years to 8 months.

Is anyone else here tired of Dem/Rep/Left/Right? What's correct or just is correct and just equally. Every team makes exceptions and excuses for their own while calling others out on the same behavior, and these are mostly lawyers who should know what is just.

One America - Many Parts

We may need to send these troops over to get them out...I'd love for it to be a switcheroo. Can they really announce, "We're leaving, see ya!" without endangering those there?

Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

I don't agree with sending any more to die, unless it can be shown that is necessary to protect the troops already there and increase the chances they can all be withdrawn sooner. However, Obama was elected overwhelmingly to be the CIC and after listening to many pov from many sources, he's made the call.

Isn't it about time to stop condemning the guy who INHERITED this problem and begin to show some support for the potus, as 90% of Americans did after 911?

one good thing comes out of this the dems.are for once in their history worrying about how to pay for something.

(the fact that he promised in his campaign is a worthless talking point)

#119 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 04:35 PM

Clarification please, if it's not too much trouble.

Are you saying that Obama made a campaign promise about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?

Can you find that for me and post it please?

We bomb taliban and afghans living in the border areas.

Normal, real, Pakistanis are by and large, not touched.

I see, you have much to learn.

#59 | Posted by Tosser at 2009-12-01 03:02 PM

Hey look! Tosser is an advocate for ethnic cleansing.

Who'da thunk?

Everyone sing along:

MEET THE OLD BOSS. SAME AS THE NEW BOSS.
WE DID GET FOOLED AGAIN!!

oops--switch the Old and New---geez!

(the fact that he promised in his campaign is a worthless talking point)
#119 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 04:35 PM

you mean like when he wanted to cut off new funding for Afghanistan 2 years ago?

#72 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2009-12-01 03:43 PM

Again, are you saying Obama said he would withdraw troops from Afghanistan during the election campaign?

And, can you show us any vote Obama made to cut off funding to Afghanistan occupation?

I wonder who will be the first one, of the 30,000, to die? Your son? My son? Maybe your daughter?

Like good docile cattle, we should be very proud in our homocidal ignorance. Ignorance + Arrogance is a very bad thing.

And this is about our national security--to kill the enemy.

Larry--we won Iraq--not in a straight line, but it is won.

Dear Mr. President:

Fuck you.

would you consider the uninterrupted supply of oil to be a matter of national security?

#132 | Posted by eberly at 2009-12-01 04:59 PM

Yes, I sure would.

#150 | Posted by CalifChris

But would you sacrifice your child for it?

But would you sacrifice your child for it?

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-12-01 07:10 PM | Reply

SUPERB QUESTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just tell us he's sending in the troops to obtain VICTORY!!!

Muffy-define victory. Seriously.

Larry--we won Iraq--not in a straight line, but it is won.

#180 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-12-01 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

No ma'am not at all. Iraq was lost the very second it started. I know it sucks but we as a Nation deserve THAT loss.

Larry

We are totally fucked.

#150 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-12-01 05:50 PM | Reply | Flag:Selling out for comfort.

I'm glad I didn't vote for the SOB

"Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. "I basically don't," he replied without elaborating."

Wow, what a moron!!

All of you Righties that hate my guts can breathe a sigh of relief.

I won't be voting for Obama in 2012. There isn't enough of a difference between his center right and bushs far right.

I won't be voting for Obama in 2012. There isn't enough of a difference between his center right and bushs far right.

Posted by Alexandrite at 2009-12-01 07:19 PM | Reply

I am votong for Lawrence Mohr in 2012.

Are you saying that Obama made a campaign promise about withdrawing troops from Afghanistan?

no.

Larry--we won Iraq--not in a straight line, but it is won.

#180 | Posted by MURPHY at 2009-12-01 07:09 PM | Reply | Flag: Muffy's an Iranian? Who knew?

Larry- I'll vote for you.

You couldn't possibly do worse than ANY of the presidents in my lifetime.

Larry--we won Iraq--not in a straight line, but it is won.

#180 | Posted by MURPHY

Exhibit A. Define 'victory and winning'. This ain't no football game.

"I won't be voting for Obama in 2012. There isn't enough of a difference between his center right and bushs far right."

And the alternative is what? Sitting on your ass and watching Sarah! get sworn in? No thanks.

can you show us any vote Obama made to cut off funding to Afghanistan occupation?

Nullifidian- This country DESERVES Sarah Palin.

And just think I could have a different first lady every week that I was President. We could do a sweepstakes where You donate so much money to a cause and You can be My First Lady for the Week. Unless of course I somehow accidentally get Married before then.

Larry

Undoubtedly.

Every leader in DC from Ike on down has thought so.

R or D simply don't matter there.

riiiiigggghhht.

now it doesn't matter. sure. perhaps a few libtards will realize that someday.

Barack Obama, hope and change
No experience, qualifications, or wide range.
Promises many, to the primary went
With them folded the liberals in his tent.

Barack Obama, hope and change
No experience, qualifications, or wide range.
Promises many, to the general elction went
Modidied promises, folded the independents in his tent

Barack Obama, hope and change
No experience, qualifications, or wide range.
Through guile, smiles, and marketting the election won.
Reality sets in with no place to run.

Barack Obama, on minor issues he throws a fish
Landing with a thud on the liberal's dish.
Major issues; healthcare reform and cap-n-trade
Only minor changes, subsequently made

Barack Obama, smiling and soft talking his liberal fan.
Why don't we put more troops in Afghanistan.
A puppet on a string he is indeed.
Wallstreet and big business he does heed.

Barack Obama, one year later, promises not kept.
Liberals, once again conned, silently wept.
Barack Obama, his staff behind closed doors snickering.
Liberals, unaware, constantly bickering.

Barack Obama, no hope and change
No experience, qualifications or wide range
Smooth talk, smiles, and independents more wise.
Now realizing all the subterfuge and lies

Barack Obama, no hope and change
Gitmo, Iraq, Afghanistan, healhcare, cap-n-trade, the same old range
Dingdisaster, Nullified, Illegio, liberals all; feeling the Obama shoe in their tush.
REALIZING THE SECOND COMING OF BUSH.

"This country DESERVES Sarah Palin."

I'm sure it does but I have to live in it and 8 years of Bush was quite enough. In the real, adult world, choices aren't always good/better/best. They're usually bad and worst.

I don't know why anyone on the left is upset. Obama, as usual, is aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle. Some of us pointed that out a year before he was elected.

A brother with the largest cache of weapons in the world. What the hell do you expect?

A new survey by the Gallup organization, released Tuesday, showed only 35 percent of Americans now approve of Obama's handling of the war; 55 percent disapprove.

OPPS!

Looks like PrezBo has quite the hill to climb....
.

"I won't be voting for Obama in 2012. "

I've already decided I'm not voting for either candidate from the two major party's.

It's time for a REAL change!

Obama has not lied, nor has he promised to remove all troops from Afghanistan. Anyone saying so is not being truthful.

Poor 2008, cannot accept the loss on Nov 8, 2008, when he was CRYING.

And now, thinks each new poll justifies his failed neocon disasters that Obama inherited.

Something from Harry S. for you bud...

A President cannot always be popular.
Harry S. Truman

Poor 2008, cannot accept the loss on Nov 8, 2008, when he was CRYING.

And now, thinks each new poll justifies his failed neocon disasters that Obama inherited.

Something from Harry S. for you bud...

A President cannot always be popular.
Harry S. Truman

#205 | Posted by woke

Woke, it's a riot reading your posts and others still trying to justify this guy---but fanatic followers of narcissists (aka jim jones etal.) are the last to stay with the cult of personality and drink the hemlock.

would you consider the uninterrupted supply of oil to be a matter of national security?

#132 | Posted by eberly at 2009-12-01 04:59 PM

Yes, I sure would.

#150 | Posted by CalifChris at

and war is the answer to that national security problem?

and all hitler needed was all that living space that belonged to someone else

And this is about our national security--to kill the enemy.

Larry--we won Iraq--not in a straight line, but it is won.

#178 | Posted by MURPHY

hahahaha nope

we have empowered iran, we have destabilized iraq and we have spent trillions of dollars.

nice victory.

and war is the answer to that national security problem?

and all hitler needed was all that living space that belonged to someone else

Posted by truthhurts at 2009-12-01 08:56 PM

"An army marches on its stomach"

But the military runs on oil

I don't want to be a country without a military.

and the german people needed food so they tried to take russia's

and the us needs oil so we take iraq's?

Fools Rush Eternity!

Well if you're stupid enough to go to Afghanistan to risk your life for the "Big Oil & Drug Mafias" (not to mention the "Illegal" President) then you deserve whatever befalls you!!!

#206 | POSTED BY MATSOP AT 2009-12-01 08:56 PM

Yep, i saw your posts on the other threads claiming Obama has lied about Afghanistan and ran on a total anti war posture..

You are wrong. Do you know that? If you do know that, but keep lying about his position, how does that help your pov? If you don't know it, why not? Cause you prefer to be stupid for the sake of politics?

Barack Obama will work with his military commanders to responsibly end the war in Iraq. Obama will refocus our resources on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and finish the fight with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.
www.barackobama.com

"FINISH THE FIGHT WITH THE TERRORISTS WHO ATTACKED US ON 911"
from Obama's campaign page....

-the chickenhawk strut

Official Dance of the Dick "I had other priorities" Cheney and George "But, my daddy!" Bush led Neo-GOP.

But then, had GW not pulled out early in Astan, he might have missed Uncle Karl's August "product roll-out" of a new war and a new War President.

#46 | Posted by CorkyTHETARDFROMTHESHOW at 2009-12-01 02:44 PM | Reply | Flag:DEMORAT IDEOLOGUE

TO:CORKYTHETARDFROMTHESHOW

Can't you admit that both parties are really fucking up this country? Isn't it obvious that both parties have put us on this disasterous path? And the Bamster sending 30K troops to that 5th world mess should make the point really clear.

-both parties are really fucking up this country?

Former Rethuglican

Who are you voting for next time? Mickey Mouse? CarrotTop? Or was that who you voted last time?

Did a lot of good, did it.

Talk about your 'Tards....

Republican and Democrat are two faces of the same coin. We now have the kinder gentler machine gun hand. Obama is looking less like Lincoln and more like Lyndon Johnson.

I don't want to be a country without a military.
#209 | POSTED BY CALIFCHRIS

The way Obama is spending, you will be whether you like it or not.

difference between bush and obama = spelling.

Barack Obama will work with his military commanders to responsibly end the war in Iraq. Obama will refocus our resources on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and finish the fight with the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11.

Al Qaeda is an imaginary enemy. The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11; their interests don't lie outside Afghanistan. Afghanistan was invaded on the pretext that they wouldn't give up Bin Laden, and he's dead.

This is madness!

To: corkyTHETARDFROMTHESHOW

So, you can't do it. You can't admit BOTH PARTIES ARE PATHETIC, BECAUSE YOU ARE BLINDED BY YOUR IDEOLOGICAL ALLEGIANCE TO THE DEMORATS. Shows me how brainwashed people can get.

Funny to see Null Set plugging away for the status quo. When a majority of Americans do not support the war in Afghanistan, it is not "the middle of the middle" to spend more money and American lives on that war. It IS, however, par for the course for another empty suit, war-mongering, money-printing shithead of an American president.

And you want more of that.

"Funny to see Null Set plugging away for the status quo. "

Are you fucking retarded? Oh, you're Joe...never mind.

This mess wouldn't exist in the first place but for the incompetence of GWB going back to his first months in office when he was warned of the Al Qaeda. President Obama has been left with the unenviable task of cleaning up this GOPher created mess.
The mess that exists in this country today is mainly (though not entirely) the fault of the GOP. For better or worse, the best and only hope we have for getting things going in the right direction is President Obama. He is a smart man who loves this country. It really would be nice for a change to see Americans of good faith rally behind his leadership.

from the article -

...plans to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan over six months, an accelerated timetable with an endgame built in that would have the first Marines there as early as Christmas,...

This mess wouldn't exist in the first place but for the incompetence of GWB going back to his first months in office when he was warned of the Al Qaeda. President Obama has been left with the unenviable task of cleaning up this GOPher created mess.
The mess that exists in this country today is mainly (though not entirely) the fault of the GOP. For better or worse, the best and only hope we have for getting things going in the right direction is President Obama. He is a smart man who loves this country. It really would be nice for a change to see Americans of good faith rally behind his leadership.

#223 | Posted by moder8

Man, you're sounding like the rethugs

We watched the United States falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings." We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater. We watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the hill for reoccupation by the North Vietnamese. We watched pride allow the most unimportant battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point, and so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 81s and Fire Base 6s, and so many others.

Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese.

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doesn't have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say that we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?....We are here in Washington to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country - the question of racism which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage at the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions; in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is part and parcel of everything.

Those were John Kerry's words

Those were John Kerry's words

#227 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-02 03:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

Those would be the words he lacked the courage to speak while in uniform and still considering a military career. No record of any concern by him while he was part of the execution of that war. Words spoken after leaving the military and transitioning to pursuing a career in politics.

The look on the Cadet's faces during this speech was priceless.

even chrissy matthews noted that in "enemy terriority" up at west point, they aint too impressed with him. his speech like his young presidency is a failure.

If Dumya had gone after the Taliban with the same vigor he displayed while destroying the economy, this escalation in Afghanistan wouldn't be necessary.

I have to say, one line, and one line only left me impressed with the teleprompted remarks.
I loved that he mentioned we've basically been the world's police, often times without so much as a thank you.

I wonder who that was directed at? You know that wasn't some throw away line. An Ambassador somewhere was aware that line was comming.

#231 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2009-12-02 08:33 AM | Reply | Flag: Queen

"Obama Afghanistan Speech Word Count"

President Obama's Afghanistan Speech Word Count:

'I' - 45

'Afghanistan' - 39

'Victory' - 0

It appears reinheitsgebot is either Sarvis's retarded son or significant other.

It also appears that Chimpyisgod is BL2's retarded ass baby.

I give the acorn props. Last night's speech was good. He has admitted that the war in Iraq was not the failure so many dems pray it was (Obamabots take note: your talking points to the contrary need to be updated). Now he says that we need to have specific goals, achieve those goals and leave. He has committed troops to those goals. He has acknowledge that the reason for the war is 9-11 and that this war is necessary to our national security.

One other thing I note is he said that if he didn't believe the war was in our national security interests, he would have ordered ALL of the troops home. Based on that statement, isn't it interesting that we STILL have troops in Iraq.

I applaud him. President George W. Bush could have given that exact same speech....in fact some of the lines in the speech sounded like they were written by President George W. Bush. I hope acorn continues along this path.

It also appears that Chimpyisgod is BL2's retarded ass baby.

#238 | Posted by reinheitsgebot

Did Dad/Savis help you with the witty post, Forrest?

Young Rein seeking counsel from Moder8..

All Wissy can come up with this morning is "F-f-f-orest G-g-g-ump!" Talk about life immitating art.

Obama was elected on the promise that he would add more troops to Afghanistan, exit Iraq with all due haste and reform health care.-Spud

If he promised it so early then why did it take him so long to decide to send the troops? And so far, the only exit strategy for leaving Iraq is the one that Bush had in place before he left office. Obama has 6 months to deliver on his promise of having troops out in 16 months and that isn't going to happen. As for reforming health care, we'll have to wait and see.

The U.S., with 5% of the world's population, has no right to 25% of the world's oil. If the U.S. has made that into some entitlement necessary to "national security" and a justification for imperialist adventures, then it needs to rethink its energy consumption.

#159 | Posted by nullifidian

If 25% is what we need because that is what we consume then we have every right to it.

Isn't it about time to stop condemning the guy who INHERITED this problem and begin to show some support for the potus, as 90% of Americans did after 911?

#170 | Posted by woke

Please do explain to me how Obama deserves the same sort of support that Bush received directly after 9/11? What you want is for people to just blindly support him like you do. It ain't gonna happen and he hasn't earned it.

All Wissy can come up with this morning is "F-f-f-orest G-g-g-ump!" Talk about life immitating art.

#252 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

I also came up with Doc Sarvis 15 minutes ago. And it was a 2 flusher.

One can hardly blame the West Point leadership. The academy commanders did their best to ensure that Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama's speech would be well-received.

Just minutes before the president took the stage inside Eisenhower Hall, the gathered cadets were asked to respond "enthusiastically" to the speech. But it didn't help: The soldiers' reception was cool.

One didn't have to be a cadet on Tuesday to feel a bit of nausea upon hearing Obama's speech. It was the least truthful address that he has ever held. He spoke of responsibility, but almost every sentence smelled of party tactics. He demanded sacrifice, but he was unable to say what it was for exactly.

In his speech on America's new Afghanistan strategy, Obama tried to speak to both places. It was two speeches in one. That is why it felt so false. Both dreamers and realists were left feeling distraught.

The American president doesn't need any opponents at the moment. He's already got himself.

this guy is falling fast, but how could it be, he is perfect, the smartest man ever, the one, the best political mind in history, the greastest thing to ever happend to humanity, how is the politzer prize looking now huh, what a joke.

Again, 90% of Americans rallied behind our potus after 911.

What has changed now?

#204 | Posted by woke

Are you really being serious with this. I'm starting to believe those who say that you are insane. Please tell me what has happened that is anywhere near the scope and size and had the effect of 9/11?

What has changed is that we haven't been attacked in a manner such as 9/11. We haven't lost 3,000 civilians in one fell swoop. We haven't had an act of war essentially declared on us. That's what has changed.

He owns it from here on in. 2012 will be another year of change.

But, scooter - he TOLD the Germans he is a citizen of they world! Why would they reject his speech? ::smirk::

"Please tell me what has happened that is anywhere near the scope and size and had the effect of 9/11? "

The surplus Dubya inherited turned into the largest deficit known to man since the dawn of time, and the Economic House of Cards collapsed.

Again, 90% of Americans rallied behind our potus after 911.

The mess that exists in this country today is mainly (though not entirely) the fault of the GOP.

Sorry, but the mess exists because we were attacked without provocation. You can blame Bush for decisions he made concerning the wars but we wouldn't be in them if we hadn't been attacked.

The mess that exists in this country today is mainly (though not entirely) the fault of the GOP.

Sorry, but the mess exists because we were attacked without provocation. You can blame Bush for decisions he made concerning the wars but we wouldn't be in them if we hadn't been attacked.

"we wouldn't be in them if we hadn't been attacked."

Except one of those two countries had nothing to do with the attack.

The increased troops, Obama said, "will increase our ability to train competent Afghan security forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans."

AKA NATION BUILDING

All the same we take our chances
Laughed at by time
Tricked by circumstances
Plus ca change
Plus c'est la meme chose
The more that things change
The more they stay the same
- Circumstances by Rush

Getting more appropiate by the day, Kanrei.

People here are now saying "oh yeah...we liked it better without Kanrei here."

But would you sacrifice your child for it?

Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-12-01 07:10 PM | Reply

When I enlisted it wasn't as my dad's son, I was my own man. I always found it condescending when Michael Moore insinuated in Fahrenheit 911 that parents were the ones that enlisted "children".

When I told my old man I volunteered for a summer in Iraq in 2010 he was not happy, and didn't want me to go, but I made my decision and it is just that, my decision.

AndyUheNet, FTW.

Isn't it about time to stop condemning the guy who INHERITED this problem and begin to show some support for the potus, as 90% of Americans did after 911?
#170 | Posted by woke
Please do explain to me how Obama deserves the same sort of support that Bush received directly after 9/11? What you want is for people to just blindly support him like you do. It ain't gonna happen and he hasn't earned it.

#256 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-12-02 10:27 AM

OK, Obama deserves the suppport of all Americans because he inherited these same issues and these occupations, he didn't create them.

Tell us, what has changed? Tell us, why did lillaWol IGNORE Afghanistan with about 10k troops for 8 years? Tell us why he allowed the taleban to resurge there? Why did the last regime not send more troops if it was so critical that the righties are claiming dithering? Was ignoring Afghanistan by aWol, dithering?

Please do tell me how lilaWol deserved that support from lefties, considering he was APPOINTED potus by his daddy's scotus cronys and allowed 911 to occur on his watch? Did he 'earn' it simply by being so incompetent as to allow 911 to occur on his watch? Did Obama allow such a breach?

Please, do tell us what has changed since 911 besides an INCREASE in terrorists and terrror attacks on Americans since then? (except we now have a dem potus and the GOP are placing politics above our potus and country?

Yeah like how does that work anyways?? I am opposed to what the President (one I vehamentally fell in love with as a candidate and proudly voted.) for makes Me a hack?? How does that work LoD??? I don't understand it.

#148 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-01 05:47 PM

Don't let the bull shit get to you.

good

need more from nato
of course we also got an exit date..
this couldnt be sending a feeling of fear through our enemies.
no when the chickenshit liar used the pronoun I a couple of dozen times and used the word victory or win ...uh........uh..er...like maybe NONE........

HOWEVER.......I support you mister president in sending the help, but its too bad you had to sit on the fence with your radical leftists masters on the exit date...

BUT HEY.........maybe at least THIS surge he will agree worked.......god willing and the men and women soldiers are successfull

People here are now saying "oh yeah...we liked it better without Kanrei here."

#268 | Posted by kanrei

Let me quess....Moder8, Jackass, Axe, FrankF2.5? You know, the Crybaby Posse.

What has changed is that we haven't been attacked in a manner such as 9/11. We haven't lost 3,000 civilians in one fell swoop. We haven't had an act of war essentially declared on us. That's what has changed.

#259 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-12-02 10:33 AM

I see, so in your estimation, it's all good now and we should forget 911 entirely, eh?

Actually, there have been many terror attacks on Americans since 911, just not on the homeland.

Since righties always want to claim Clinton was responsible for 911, claiming he didn't act (which btw is a LIE),now you want to claim Obama is wrong for acting? Hilarious.

2002
June 14, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
2003 1
May 12, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers kill 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
2004
May 2931, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American.
June 1119, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
Dec. 6, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
2005
Nov. 9, Amman, Jordan: suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
2006
Sept. 13, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy is foiled.
2007
Jan. 12, Athens, Greece: the U.S. embassy is fired on by an anti-tank missile causing damage but no injuries.
Dec. 11, Algeria: more than 60 people are killed, including 11 United Nations staff members, when Al Qaeda terrorists detonate two car bombs near Algeria's Constitutional Council and the United Nations offices.
2008
June 12, Afghanistan: four American servicemen are killed when a roadside bomb explodes near a U.S. military vehicle in Farah Province.
July 13, Afghanistan: nine U.S.soldiers and at least 15 NATO troops die when Taliban militants boldly attack an American base in Kunar Province, which borders Pakistan. It's the most deadly against U.S. troops in three years.
Aug. 18 and 19, Afghanistan: as many as 15 suicide bombers backed by about 30 militants attack a U.S. military base, Camp Salerno, in Bamiyan. Fighting between U.S. troops and members of the Taliban rages overnight. No U.S. troops are killed.
Sept. 16, Yemen: a car bomb and a rocket strike the U.S. embassy in Yemen as staff arrived to work, killing 16 people, including 4 civilians. At least 25 suspected al-Qaeda militants are arrested for the attack.
Nov. 26, India: in a series of attacks on several of Mumbai's landmarks and commercial hubs that are popular with Americans and other foreign tourists, including at least two five-star hotels, a hospital, a train station, and a cinema. About 300 people are wounded and nearly 190 people die, including at least 5 Americans.
2009

Please, do tell us what has changed since 911 besides an INCREASE in terrorists and terrror attacks on Americans since then? (except we now have a dem potus and the GOP are placing politics above our potus and country?

#270 | Posted by woke

I already told you what has changed and what is different. If you chose to ignore it that's your problem. Bush had a lot of support directly after 9/11 but before he left office support for him was very low. If you want Obama to have the same support Bush had just wait. His poll numbers have been steadily declining and he will have the support Bush had soon enough.

You are bat shit crazy to expect Obama to have the same support Bush had directly after 9/11. Please tell me what he has done to deserve such support? Forget what he inherited, tell me what he's actually done.

This seems suspiciously like Lyndon Johnson's reaction to Vietnam after JFK left him with that mess. Let's send in a few troops. No real plan, no real strategy, very limited rules of engagement. But at least he wouldn't be the president who lost Vietnam. A nice, soft response, a response to try to placate both sides. Since it worked there, it should work now, right? Only real difference is that Johnson didn't set a retreat date.

I see, so in your estimation, it's all good now and we should forget 911 entirely, eh?-Woke

I never even implied such a thing. And every single attack you listed was in a foreign country and would have happened no matter who was sitting in the white house. Don't you realize that terrorists have been attacking civilian, and the occasional military, targets for a few decades now? There will be just as many or more attacks of the same kind while Obama is president.

For you to try and assign the blame to Bush for those attacks is incredibly intellectually dishonest. It is quite impossible for us to guard every hotel, resort, and nightclub in the world, and that's where these people target. They go after civilians. Now, if you want to list the attacks we had from foreign terrorists in America while Bush was in office feel free. I'll even give you 9/11 which makes the total one. Which equals Obama's total since the attack on Fort Hood.

And it's hard to blame Bush for 9/11 since it was planned, financed, and organized under Clinton. The original date was set for 3/11.

#278 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-12-02 11:35 AM | Reply | Flag:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HA and HA

Laugh all you want, but tell me I'm wrong, and why. Otherwise your just being a dick.

Now, if you want to list the attacks we had from foreign terrorists in America while Bush was in office feel free. I'll even give you 9/11 which makes the total one.

well except for Anthrax attacks

and possibly

American Flight 587

your = you're

I guess we can blame the DC snipers on Bush, too. And while we're at it, let's through in every bone-head fuck criminal activity since his inauguration up to today, after all, everything else is Bush's fault.

It is hard to blame Bush for an attack that happened on 9-11 that he was warned about in a PDB on 8-6? Are you serious?

By your logic, the 93 WTC attack is all Bush's fault then, since it was planned while Bush was in office, not Clinton, right?

And the "America will leave if hit hard enough" was not started under Clinton with the Cole and the Africa Embassies, but rather with Saint Reagan and his retreat from Beirut in the 80's after 245 Marines were blown up by a car bomb, right?

Not arguing about that, sure. Fact is, can we REALLY just blame to dude who happens to be in the chair at the time of the attack. Libs want to blame Bush for 9/11, but give Obama a break for Ft. Hood. Neither is the fault of the President. I would argue stronger for holding Clinton responsible, for his complete lack of response to terror during his administration, but in reality not much would have probably changed.

Basically Spoke, you are 100% wrong AND I am being a dick. It is not an "or" situation.

Great point about Beirut. Reagan's greatest mistake. Showed us as incredibly weak. Clinton didn't help, and probably hurt us quite a bit.

#286 - don't forget the "why." And let's just change that to "cunt."

well except for Anthrax attacks

and possibly

American Flight 587

#281 | Posted by truthhurts

I said "foreign" terrorists, which most likely discounts the anthrax attacks.

"I would argue stronger for holding Clinton responsible, for his complete lack of response to terror during his administration"

I beg to differ, dhimmi.
~Ramzi Yousef
United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX)
Florence, CO

It can be argued, and I do believe it, that we have been in a 30 year war with Iran that started under Carter. Reagan made deals with them that convinced them we were weak, cowards, and fools. Reagan's actions are directly responsible for EVERYTHING that has transpired in the War on Terror AKA the Iran's Proxy War on America.

#286 - don't forget the "why." And let's just change that to "cunt."

#289 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009-12-02 11:45 AM

Post 286 is you. Are you fighting with yourself now. Calling yourself a "cunt" is rude. I think you should flag yourself for that.

Well, there's one. Oh, and that aspirin factory in Afghanistan. But let's face it, he was a complete pussy toward Iraq, essentially causing the second Iraq war with his inability to keep them in check. Remember the Oil for Food crap? But that was just the UN, right?

Flagged, and can count, obviously. But are you still incapable of answering a question? Or are you like our current pussy-in-chief and trying to straddle the middle so hard it gives you a bruised cunt?

I have answered you. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of literacy. #284 answered your "why."

RIF.org can help you provided you can read the website.

Great point about Beirut. Reagan's greatest mistake. Showed us as incredibly weak. Clinton didn't help, and probably hurt us quite a bit.

#288 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2009

before you start hugging and kissing on kanrie..(figuratively I HOPE)
read some things about that time and the dems in congress when reagan had the marines there.
interesting info about how DEMS refused to give them things they needed.
NO ExcuSE...just more info...

Kanrei, terrorist attacks have also been occurring for that long, yet Woke believes that every terrorist attack that took place during his terms is Bush's fault. Not only is he disturbed he's intellectually dishonest. I don't even know why I respond to the guy. It's just a waste of time and an exercise in futility.

For all of you numerous libtards spewing hatred of all things 'Bush' it would serve you well to read up some on your condition:

The number of things that Bush has been blamed for in this world since 9/11 (even acts of God like Tsunamis, hurricanes and other natural disasters) is the stuff of major comedy. You name the horrible event, and he is identified as the etiologic agent.

He is blamed when he does something (anything) and he is blamed when he does nothing. He is blamed for things that ocurred even before he was President, as well as everything that has happened since. He is blamed for things he says; and for things he doesn't say.

What makes Bush Hatred completely insane however, is the almost delusional degree of unremitting certitude of Bush's evil; while simultaneously believing that the TRUE perpetrators of evil in the world are somehow good and decent human beings with the world's intersts at heart.

This psychological defense mechanism is referred to as "displacement".

One way you can usually tell that an individual is using displacement is that the emotion being displaced (e.g., anger) is all out of proportion to the reality of the situation. The purpose of displacement is to avoid having to cope with the actual reality. Instead, by using displacement, an individual is able to still experience his or her anger, but it is directed at a less threatening target than the real cause. In this way, the individual does not have to be responsible for the consequences of his/her anger and feels more safe--even thought that is not the case.

Reagan made deals with them that convinced them we were weak, cowards, and fools. Reagan's actions are directly responsible for EVERYTHING that has transpired in the War on Terror AKA the Iran's Proxy War on America.

#292 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-12-02 11:46 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

so we can assume that you also credit RR for bringing libya in line when he sent the bombs through the col's tent????

or are you 'selectively' forgetting that?

and winning the cold war on his resume as well....

well I guess one guy cant do it all>.........

believes that every terrorist attack that took place during his terms is Bush's fault.

It is, cut and dry, plan and simple. Clinton is responsible for the 93 attack. Bush is responsible for 9-11. It was their duty to guard us and it happened on their watch. When it was planned does not matter; when it happened does.

#299

why are righties such whiny bitches?

so we can assume that you also credit RR for bringing libya in line when he sent the bombs through the col's tent????

Lybia was a flyspeck, not a problem.

and winning the cold war on his resume as well....

well I guess one guy cant do it all>.........

He didn't win the Cold War. The Russians lost it win Afghanistan, much like we are today.

It is hard to blame Bush for an attack that happened on 9-11 that he was warned about in a PDB on 8-6? Are you serious?

#284 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-12-02 11:40 AM

lol

200

DONT forget the other side

sit back and close your eyes and imagine the room full of awards for obama or clinton if they had helped to save the thousands and thousands of lives in africa with aids money........

or imagine the nobels blowjob billy and barry would already have if they had saved FIFTY MILLION MUSLImS in the war to push sadaam out of kuwiat.

People whine about increased airport security AFTER the attacks; you really think increased security would've flown prior?

It was not real security after, but the illusion of security. The guns the National Guardsmen had in those airports were most often not even loaded. Strip searching a 90 year old while not profiling when a clear profile is available is stupid, not security.

Kanrei, conspiracy theories don't count toward answering "why." No doubt you're saying that Bush recieved a phone call or email listing time, date, and place. You probably still believe Bush was involved and there were explosives planted in the Towers, too.

Perhaps you should revisit Condi Rice's testimony about the Presidential Daily Briefing entitiled "Bin Lauden Determined to Attack"

You probably still believe Bush was involved and there were explosives planted in the Towers, too.

Strawman on line three. You don't need me for this discussion anymore since you are not only fighting yourself and trying to call me a "cunt," but calling yourself one instead, but are now assigning me positions I never held. No more responses will follow to you.

It was not real security after, but the illusion of security. The guns the National Guardsmen had in those airports were most often not even loaded. Strip searching a 90 year old while not profiling when a clear profile is available is stupid, not security.

Not to mention, if shipping containers in this country still aren't being scrutinized, and no legitimate attempt to secure the borders are being made, then it's all a bunch of bullshit.

your = you're
#282 | Posted by SpokaneJim

That is the least of your problems.

It was not real security after, but the illusion of security. The guns the National Guardsmen had in those airports were most often not even loaded. Strip searching a 90 year old while not profiling when a clear profile is available is stupid, not security.

#306 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-12-02 11:58 AM

Perhaps you should revisit Condi Rice's testimony about the Presidential Daily Briefing entitiled "Bin Lauden Determined to Attack"

#308 | Posted by kanrei at

maybe you should read the book by the soldier in charge of the 'nuclear football; under blowjob and read all of the things he has to say about bill and hillary and thier hatred of all things military
AND thier plan to criminalize terrorists who WERE aT WAR WITH US.
JUST FOR STaRTErS...
oh but NO>..........cant do that now can we?????

and do the rest of you remember pre 9/11 ideas and shit..
not to make an excuse for ANYONE but were ANY of you really all that concerned about shit from people that far away.
surely you felt as out of the way as others did>

just asking

Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington

why let facts get in the way of your argument.

#310 | Posted by truthhurts at 2009

lets INVESTIGATE THEN

but you HAVE TO START further back
oh say..how about with the info that FDR knew the attack on pearl harbor was coming

Im sure such a well read person as yourself knows about those stories.

When it was planned does not matter; when it happened does.

#301 | Posted by kanrei

No, Kanrei, I mean even attacks that occur in places like Egypt and other countries in the Middle East. Not America.

not to make an excuse for ANYONE but were ANY of you really all that concerned about shit from people that far away.
surely you felt as out of the way as others did>

nope I just assumed that the bush administration had a clue on how to defend us.

By the way, Kanrei, I told Woke that I consider 9/11 Bush's fault just as I consider Fort Hood Obama's fault. Which means, as of right now, they both have the same amount of terrorist attacks in the name of Allah to their credit.

By the way, Kanrei, I told Woke that I consider 9/11 Bush's fault just as I consider Fort Hood Obama's fault. Which means, as of right now, they both have the same amount of terrorist attacks in the name of Allah to their credit.

#318 | Posted by everlong at 2009-12-02 12:16 PM

LOL

The partisan wheel keeps turning.

I commend Obama on his decision, I hope this works for Afghanistan, and the United States.

Godspeed to our men and women in uniform!

Fianlly, I got Kanrei to shut the fuck up. If he can't answer a simple question, no reason to actually respond.

Would Bush have gotten blamed had the attack actually occurred on 3/11, the originally planned date? Probably. Libs were still peeing themselves over the election. How would Gore have responded? Bottom line is that most Americans still had the philosophy that we were well insulated from the rest of the world by the Atlantic and Pacific. We were being attacked overseas, but nothing here. Even now we really only seem to be worried about home-grown terrorists, and completely ignore open borders both north and south.

Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington

why let facts get in the way of your argument.

#310 | Posted by truthTOILETYhurts at 2009-12-02 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:VERY TARDACIOUS

TO: truthTOILETYhurts

I hope that with your liberal bias, even you can admit that your statement implying "we let" 9/11 happen is very Tardacious.

The fact of the matter is US intelligence agencies recieves THOUSANDS of pieces of Intel information a DAY. They recieve bad info, unactionable info, partially useful info that cannot be acted on...basically a whole array of information, some useful, some not. Same thing happened with Pearl Harbor.

But Tardacious Americans must spin this into a conspiracy theory. All hail Tardacious Americans.

nope I just assumed that the bush administration had a clue on how to defend us.

#317 | Posted by truthhurts

and so you apparently had that same assumption during blowjobs reign of terror on interns with the cole and the embassies and such???

AND LAST NIGHT ON CNN

anyone else hear the stuff from ammanpour(sp)

she said the afghan people WANT us there and they do not see us as the enemy or occupiers and all of that

it was no wonder that they cut away from her REAL quick.

Fort Hood is Obama's fault?

LOL

The partisan wheel keeps turning.

#319 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE

How is it not? It was perpetrated by a radical Muslim terrorist and it happened on his watch. The exact same variables were involved with 9/11 and Bush is blamed by the left for that. Fort Hood was a terrorist attack that happened on Obama's watch.

Fianlly, I got Kanrei to shut the fuck up. If he can't answer a simple question, no reason to actually respond.

I love when idiots think they've won. If one cannot spell simple words like "FINALLY," there is no reason to believe one will understand anything they read.

But Tardacious Americans must spin this into a conspiracy theory. All hail Tardacious Americans.

#322 | Posted by tickyul

Save your breath. The reality is this. If 9/11 would have happened on Clinton's watch, and all of the planning for it did, the left would absolutely not blame him for it. There is no question about this and the left knows it. Their hatred for Bush knows no bounds and it leads them to blame him for anything and everything bad that happens.

The last great Liberal argument - you spelled a word wrong!!! Ahhhhh!!! No issues, no answers, no arguments, no reasoning. Typical lib, ideology over substance. Ever take a Logic class? Gosh, where to begin....

No issues, no answers, no arguments, no reasoning.

No comprehension, no understanding, no literacy. Ignore answers given repeatedly and pretend like you are the victim of an attack. Let us all shed tears for victim Spokanus, shall we?

So, Kanrei, do you consider attacks that occurred on foreign soil to be the fault of Bush? Attacks like suicide bombings of nightclubs and shops and hotels. Woke says they are all Bush's fault.

How is it not? It was perpetrated by a radical Muslim terrorist and it happened on his watch. The exact same variables were involved with 9/11 and Bush is blamed by the left for that. Fort Hood was a terrorist attack that happened on Obama's watch.

#325 | Posted by everlong at 2009-12-02 12:23 PM

So, Kanrei, do you consider attacks that occurred on foreign soil to be the fault of Bush?

What? I never said one way or the other on this. I am busy right now with Spokanus to bother with Woke's moronic thoughts or your petty nitpicking of them.

Contrary to these prolific claims, there is compelling evidence that the U.S. intelligence community had extensive forewarning of the 11th September attacks on New York and Washington

why let facts get in the way of your argument.

#310 | Posted by truthTOILETYhurts at 2009-12-02 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:VERY TARDACIOUS

TO: truthTOILETYhurts

I hope that with your liberal bias, even you can admit that your statement implying "we let" 9/11 happen is very Tardacious.

The fact of the matter is US intelligence agencies recieves THOUSANDS of pieces of Intel information a DAY. They recieve bad info, unactionable info, partially useful info that cannot be acted on...basically a whole array of information, some useful, some not. Same thing happened with Pearl Harbor.

But Tardacious Americans must spin this into a conspiracy theory. All hail Tardacious Americans.

#322 | Posted by tickyul

truth hurts donut

either the bush administration as incompetent or complicit, which is it?

having arrested one of the hijackers a couple of weeks earlier a hijacker with KNOWN links to Al queda, with a PDB stating AQ determined to attack the US and mentioning planes....

nah too much to expect from the brainless wonder

TO answer the question Ever, some are Bush's fault and others are not. It is not a "one answer fits all" situation.

The last great Liberal argument - you spelled a word wrong!!! Ahhhhh!!! No issues, no answers, no arguments, no reasoning. Typical lib, ideology over substance. Ever take a Logic class? Gosh, where to begin....

#328 | Posted by SpokaneJim at

SON YOU HAVE NOW ARRIVED as a conservative or non liberal poster here on the ole retort.
IN MOsT CASES, thats the only argument you will read or its as close as many of them EVER get to debate.

and iF it is aimed at you, then my friend, you are one of the TRUTHSPeaKERs here on our great little site.

bravo!!!!

kanrie

you are simply going to HAVE TO STOP all that 'bi partisan' commonsense thinking you have been coming up with lately.

I mean reallllly........

AFK,
I did not pick on him for spelling a word wrong. I said his spelling added to his responding to his own posts and trying to call me a cunt made him no worthy of response.

THis is what I said to him: If one cannot spell simple words like "FINALLY," there is no reason to believe one will understand anything they read.

correction 10 days later ZM was arrested.

Indeed, the U.S. government actively prevented a further investigation from being conducted. Local FBI investigators in Minneapolis had immediately viewed Zacarias as a terrorist suspect and sought authorisation for a special counterintelligence surveillance warrant in order to search the hard drive of his home computer. The government's Justice Department plus top FBI officials blocked an FBI request for a national security warrant to search Zacarias' computer, claiming that FBI agents lacked sufficient information to meet the legal requirements to justify the warrant. The block remained in place even after the notification from French intelligence that Zacarias was linked to bin Laden

Perhaps if Bush called the Justice Dept and said push the envelope, this guy is a really bad buy with ties to Al Queda.

What? I never said one way or the other on this. I am busy right now with Spokanus to bother with Woke's moronic thoughts or your petty nitpicking of them.

#332 | Posted by kanrei
You stated that 9/11 was Bush's fault after I asked you if you agreed with Woke about all attacks being his fault. Now you act like you're too busy to clarify what you meant and what you believe? It's not very hard to carry on two conversations at once.

I started ignoring you after I decided that you were a prick, but I thought I'd try to mend fences and you come at me calling me petty without any provocation at all. Your status of prick has been reinstated. All I was trying to do was see where you stood on the question. So, fuck you too.

okay truth..
so produce somethings about clinton and his reaction to the cole and embassy shit and all that.
must not have done much to protect us AFTER attacks

you know like

NO ATTACKS in 8 years after 9/11
could it be perhaps the idea that they are common criminals and not TERRORISTS???????

ah well

later boys....time for a hot bowl of TEXAS CHILI ....

So, fuck you too.

Back at you with a bow. I told you long ago not to speak to me, yet here you are.

U.S. police arrested a man with dual French and Algerian nationality who had several passports, technical information on Boeing aircraft and flight manuals. The man had been taking flying lessons, it added. Asked for information by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, French security services provided a dossier clearly identifying him as an Islamic militant working with bin Laden

PRIOR to 9/11 the FBI has in custody a foreign national with multiple passports, accusations of suspect behaviour by reliable witnesses that he was going to hijack a plane, confirmation that he was in AQ,

yet bush's Justice Dept REFUSES a warrant to look in his computer.

TO answer the question Ever, some are Bush's fault and others are not. It is not a "one answer fits all" situation.

#334 | Posted by kanrei

No. It is a very simple question. Do you believe that attacks that occur ob foreign soil, not related to Iraq or Afghanistan, were Bush's fault? That is very easy to answer and one answer does fit all. You sure are acting like an arrogant A-hole.

Back at you with a bow. I told you long ago not to speak to me, yet here you are.

#343 | Posted by kanrei

And like I said, I was trying to be the better man and mend fences. Then you come at me with insults for no reason at all. I guess you're the type of person who doesn't believe in reconciliation and forgiveness. That much is very apparent.

You are bat shit crazy to expect Obama to have the same support Bush had directly after 9/11. Please tell me what he has done to deserve such support? Forget what he inherited, tell me what he's actually done.

#275 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-12-02 11:22 AM

I already did. He is president of the usa. Is that not good enough for you? Why not? How can we "forget what he inherited" when our troops are still in harm's way?

What has changed? Has OBL been caught? Have al queda been stopped? Has the taleban been banished in Afghanistan/Pakistan? Besides Obama being a dem, what has changed since 911?

By your pathetic logic, you will only support Obama if/when the USA is attacked on his watch, eh?

Pretty funny.

1. If you think I'm "insane" as you said in your earlier post, why would you bother responding to it, did I invoke YOUR name in my post?

2. If you could, you would debunk the article w link and points I've made. Apparently, you cannot do so and instead have chosen the usual rw ploy when that occurs, namecalling and insults.

Up til now, I haven't seen that from you much, but I see your inability to actually debate the topic and info I've posted has left you unable to do otherwise.

Sad for you.

Now, if you want to list the attacks we had from foreign terrorists in America while Bush was in office feel free. I'll even give you 9/11 which makes the total one. Which equals Obama's total since the attack on Fort Hood.

#277 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-12-02 11:30 AM

So, in your mind, a US military officer, "going rogue" berserk with a couple of weapons and shooting a handful of people is the exact same thing as 4 planned attacks by al queda, flying commercial aircraft into and destroying the two largest buildings in NYC, the pentagon, presumably attempting to hit the wh and killing nearly 3k Americans?

Do us both a favor and stop posting anything to me, cause you are just too fkn "insane" to warrant any further responses.

Do us both a favor and stop posting anything to me, cause you are just too fkn "insane"...

#348 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-02 01:11 PM | Repl

The guy who claims to be close personal friends with people he's never met, and who claims to have PTSD is calling somebody else insane. Fucking classic. You're a fucking lunatic.

Woke, I will be more than happy to never address you again. And there are a whole lot more people here who think you are insane than they do me. And they are both left and right.

You consider an attack on a nightclub in Singapore to be Bush's fault but deem an attack by a radical Muslim on US soil to not be Obama's fault in any way. That's great logic there.

Lastly, since this is the last time I will be addressing you, why do you think people should read your never ending links when you refuse to answer the most simple and direct questions asked of you? That is yet another sign of your instability. Have fun, because it won't be long until no one here will address you anymore.

"And there are a whole lot more people here who think you are insane than they do me. "

I'd say closer to a tie. : D

Lighten up, both ya'll. Geesh.

Just a couple of the many examples of this pos denigrating war veterans. Is it any w

Max Cleland says, "Somebody roll me down that hill and then check and see if I didn't blow my pecker off too!"
#64 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2009-12-01 02:32 PM

Uhhhhg! Cleland's one arm is causing him to hook horribly to the right, and I can't seem to pick up the seven-ten split.
#346 | POSTED BY 101CHAIRBORNE AT 2009-11-05 02:53 PM

Anyone denigrating war veterans, especially those who gave so much as Cleland did, are nothing but low life POS.

That this pos chooses to use a military handle, making him a "wannabee" and makes his denigration of actual war veterans even more "insane", eh?

#350 | Posted by everlong at 2009-12-02 01:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

What a joke you are. The attack in Ft Hood was by a mentally imbalanced individual who just happened to be a Muslim. It was not a terrorist attack any more than Crips attacking Bloods are a terrorist attack. In addition, Bush was warned directly and specifically about the 911 attacks---what warnings or briefings did Obama get about the Ft Hood attack? Woke is just weeding out the wheat from the chaff in requesting people to not address him anymore. As stated, you are a joke--just not a very funny joke.

1. Woke, I will be more than happy to never address you again.

2. And there are a whole lot more people here who think you are insane than they do me.
#350 | POSTED BY EVERLONG AT 2009-12-02 01:19 PM

1. Thanks. From this point forward, I'll afford you the same courtesy.

2. Right, and they are just like you, unable to deal with the CONTENT of my posts that includes links to the credible sources.

As I said, IF you could do so, you would. That you instead choose to devolve into just another rw trolleyboy spewing insults and attacks on the messenger is totally understandable. Stupid, but understandable.

I'd say closer to a tie. : D

Lighten up, both ya'll. Geesh.

#351 | Posted by Lisa

I know you're probably joking, but I have seen no less that 5 people accuse Woke of being insane. He is the only person here who has called me insane.

I guess you're the type of person who doesn't believe in reconciliation and forgiveness.

I very much do, but not in all cases. The depths of your prickness makes me not want any dealings with you and I made that clear months ago.

Lighten up
#351 | Posted by Lisa

Ok, Lisa.

Uh, did you ever decide whether you were a "protestant" or not?

Everlong is WAY more sane than Woke. I don't like Everlong, but I would rather debate/fight him over Woke anyday. You can debate asshole, but you can't debate stupid.

oops, I forgot to add LOL to #357

In addition, Bush was warned directly and specifically about the 911 attacks---what warnings or briefings did Obama get about the Ft Hood attack?

#353 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2009-12-02 01:28 PM | Reply | Flag

Really? I imagine you should tone that ridiculous rhetoric down some, you crazy fucker.
You've been listening and repeating talking points, stupid.

kanrei

The only reason you cannot debate me is that you don't have the ability to do so because it would require some thought, some research and posting of credible source links to do so, eh?

Aren't you the guy who thought Jimi Hendrix has composer credit on All Along the Watchtower?

LOL

Woke...you truly do deserve what others say about you here.

I'm a Christian.

Why don't you learn something today rather than antagonize others.

As stated, you are a joke--just not a very funny joke.

#353 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob

I'm the joke!?! Coming from the smokestacks on the moon, 9/11 was an inside job, and Bush was a pedophile person, that comment has zero credibility.

And all I am doing when blaming Obama for the attack on Fort Hood is using the same logic people use when blaming Bush for 9/11. What people say more than anything is that it happened on his watch which makes it his fault.

And are you assuming that the 19 hijackers who flew the planes into building had all of their mental faculties about them? Their deed was as senseless as the one at Fort Hood and it happened on Obama's watch. And since you are too dim to figure it out, I'll explain it for you. I am only showing the absurdity of blaming either of them for either attack. But since you believe that Bush was supposed to know about the attack based on the thousands of memos and threats that they received before hand, I'm sure you won't consider it absurd to blame him. Even though it is.

That this pos chooses to use a military handle, making him a "wannabee" and makes his denigration of actual war veterans even more "insane", eh?

#352 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-02 01:22 PM | Reply

You're batshit insane.

My ID Card says "Indefinite", what's yours say, old man?

Aren't you the guy who thought Jimi Hendrix has composer credit on All Along the Watchtower?

No, I am the guy who said he arranged his cover and therefore gets some credit on his version. You, on the otherhand, are the loser who doesn't read what others say and instead assigns them points of view.

Face it, Everlong has contributed more than just punchlines here. You haven't even gone that far.

Woke, pull your bottom lip over your head and swallow.

I very much do, but not in all cases. The depths of your prickness makes me not want any dealings with you and I made that clear months ago.

#356 | Posted by kanrei

I was an asshole for one day and you are going to condemn me for that for good then? Okay. But I bet you can't point to any instances where I've been a total prick in some time. And thanks for the underhanded, I guess, compliment about the difference between me and Woke.

Lisa

Guess what? Any Christian not Catholic IS a Protestant.

Just wanted to clear that up for you finally.

And guess what else?

I don't come here to make friends, have a family or a home. I already have all those.

I come here to debate issues by providing information, along with links to credible sources and to support war veteran's service, regardless of their politics....

That this site chooses to allow rampant right wing, nonsensical trollism, (namecalling, insults, ad hominem attacks on other posters, etc) doesn't concern me. It's not my site.

That you choose to join them is on you sista.

A person is known by the company they choose to keep, eh?

Follow your own advice and "lighten up".

LOL

Ever,
I don't like you, but I respect you actually. You are consistent and not always looking for a fight. I should probably get past that one day and let it go, that is a weakness on my part. You do contribute here.

Right now, I am the bigger asshole between you and me.

kanrei

As i said, if you could you would provide some credibly sourced evidence of your assertion about Jimi Hendrix.

For instance, you could maybe find any source giving hendrix any composition credit for All Along the Watchtower, but you cannot do that.

As I said then, if your assertion that anyone putting a new lead solo on a cover was given composer credits for that song, all the jazz artists who cover songs by others would be raking it in, eh?

You are wrong, but like many here, you refuse to acknowledge when you are wrong and instead choose be angry and to attack the messenger.

No worries on me, it's your stupidity on this issue, not mine.

Well, I appreciate you saying that, Kanrei. I really mean that. And everyone has a right to be an asshole every once in a while. Especially in a place like this. And I suppose I have the same feelings towards you, which is why I sought to reconcile by addressing you today. I don't like other people here but I still address them.

#369 - Not in my eyes...that was big of you, Kanrei. *:}

LMBO

Show me in Scripture where Catholics were the founders of Christianity.

I don't recall anywhere in the NT that states that those who originally followed Christ were called Catholics.

Woke,
You need help. Here:

Dylan originally wrote the song's lyrics in reverse, beginning with the "All Along The Watchtower" verse, and ending with the now opening lines, "'There must be some way out of here,' said the Joker to the Thief."....

While Dylan's version had been minimalistic and menacing, Hendrix's spared nothinghis wailing electric guitar and sing-song vocal delivery were wholly different from Dylan's quiet folk performance. Hendrix rearranged the song to include several electric guitar solos, where the harmonica solos were in Dylan's version, and included it on his album Electric Ladyland (1968).

More from that link you Joke of a Loser:

Many assumed that Hendrix had written the song himself, so different was his delivery from Dylan's. Dylan's subsequent live performances of his own song have also used an electric guitar and been closer to Hendrix's arrangement than his studio version

So, Dylan wrote it, like I said, Hendrix heard it and made changes (arranged it), like I said, and that is the version you hear today. You Loser

I don't recall anywhere in the NT that states that those who originally followed Christ were called Catholics.

Posted by Lisa at 2009-12-02 01:49 PM |

They were called Jews for a long time...

1. Woke...you truly do deserve what others say about you here.
2. I'm a Christian.
3. Why don't you learn something today rather than antagonize others.

#362 | POSTED BY LISA AT 2009-12-02 01:36 PM

1. How very Christian of you.

2. That so? Does lip service count or is it more about actions? Remind me, did I address you first on this thread and/or join in on your denigration? (see #351)

3. "I don't give people hell. I tell them the truth and they think it's hell. Harry S. Truman

I'm being honest, Woke. Honesty is part of Christianity...you know, thou shall not lie?!

You provoke, you twist words around and then cry foul when someone challenges you.

I voiced my honest opinion.

So, Dylan wrote it, like I said, Hendrix heard it and made changes (arranged it), like I said, and that is the version you hear today. You Loser

#375 | Posted by kanrei

Woke, he provided everything you asked for yet you still demand more. Just admit that you got your ass kicked and shut up about it. You truly are a loser.

"How's that "change" working out for you"

This is the Thread where the WingDings say Afghanistan is Lost --- Oblivious to the fact they already Declared it "Won" back when Bush was president.

Change indeed!

EverSchlong sure gets butt hurt easy. lol!

I want Woke to go back to telling me how I supported Bush, wanted the war in Iraq, hated Kerry and Obama, and wanted Palin in 2012. That is funny stuff, I don't care who you are.

One would be hard pressed to name a President who inherited two wars and the worst recession in generations.

One would be hard pressed to name a President who inherited two wars and the worst recession in generations.

Truman? Or do we count the wars againt Japan and Germany as one war?

I want Woke to go back to telling me how I supported Bush, wanted the war in Iraq, hated Kerry and Obama, and wanted Palin in 2012. That is funny stuff, I don't care who you are.

I second that...which incidentally makes it that much more funny when Danni does it, because she knows better and tries to make it a partisan wankfest anyway.

Lisa, I think those that originally followed Christ were Jews, so no New Testament for them.. BTW, there's a Reformed Protestant Church here in town. Does that make them Catholics?

I don't come here to make friends, have a family or a home. I already have all those.

#368 | Posted by woke at 2009-12-02

Sure You Do...

At the at Ohio Hospital for Psychiatry

Eh?
.

Kanrei said that Hendrix has composer credits on All Along the Watchtower in my first dustup with him.

I said it wasn't true, and now he is saying he called it an "arrangement" credit.

hilarious....like many here, it's difficult for kanrei to admit he was WRONG, so I keep bringing it up every time he invokes my name and denigrates me......to show WHY he does so.....

some folks just have a problem admitting they are wrong...and that is a main reason the usa is in the situation it is now......some folks post verifiable, credible info with links here in response to the misinformation others post.....and the result is much namecalling and insults rather than either posting information to counter what has been posted.....it's easier to attack the messenger....

Lisa is another example of someone who doesn't like to be corrected by facts......that those Christians not Catholics are termed "protestants" by most people. She also didn't like me posting info about how 43% of women getting abortions claim to be Christians, nor my questioning one of her posts stating that "abortion is like a facelift". I knew she didn't mean it that way...she meant it would be considered "elective" surgery in the house bill version, yet she refuses to admit she was wrong in wording it that way.....The funny part was seeing someone who believe NO abortions should be allowed for any reason, then comparing that to a facelift. That she then became close friends and joined in with rw trolls attacking me, (who are not bothered by abortion at all), makes it all the more curious, eh?

It's truly hilarious to post verifiable, documented info here and watch how people react to being shown that some of their opinions are not based on fact....

Attack that messenger and never the content, eh?

LOL

THINK!

Eh?

LMFAO

Truman didn't hand out a retreat policy (exit strategy). But he certainly brought that war in Japan to a quick conclusion.

Kanrei said that Hendrix has composer credits on All Along the Watchtower in my first dustup with him.

Never did and I challenge you to post the link. I have always said he arranged it and, at best, gets co-writing credit for HIS VERSION. That you cannot read and cannot comprehend what you read is not my problem, it is yours.

I keep bringing it up every time he invokes my name and denigrates me......to show WHY he does so...

No Woke, you sad pathetic joke, I do it because you call me a right winger which makes you a pathetic partisan hack who deserves all my scorn and more. Enjoy and, as I told you that day, I was not trolling you before, but I am now.

#385 | POSTED BY IRAQIBUKKAKE AT 2009-12-02 02:10 PM

Bukkake 1: IPA: /bu̜ˈk:ake̞/ 2: IPA: /bʊˈkke/) is a sexual practice that features a person (usually a woman) being ejaculated on by several men. [1][2][3][4][5][6] It may also involve the semen being eaten.[7] Bukkake is similar to the related practice of gokkun, in which several men ejaculate into a container for the receiver to drink.[5][7] The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films, some of which involve hundreds of male participants.[2][5] There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions.[7]

Do you really want any kind of serious discussion here?

Do you really want any kind of serious discussion here?

You brought it up...do you?

kanrei

if ya walk a fenceline like a duck, quack attack the messenger like a duck and spew rw talking points like a duck....

you might be a duck and not realize it, or at the very least a very confused duck, eh?

Here is the offical start of the Great Woke Troll:

Has woke made himself offically a fish to any other DR Anglers or is it just me?

That's right Woke, I didn't troll you before, but I will now. You wanna see right wing, I'll show you a right winger >;)

#443 | Posted by kanrei at 2009-09-30 02:06 PM |

Ok, I take it back, iraqbukakke is a good name for someone joining in the rw circle jerk here on DR....

eh?

"Lisa is another example of someone who doesn't like to be corrected by facts"

Pffft

"......that those Christians not Catholics are termed "protestants" by most people."

I asked you to produce the little "fact", as you like to claim it is...that Scripture called the first Christians catholics. You ignored the request. Why?

Furthermore, because "most people" call Christians either catholic or protestant doesn't make it a "fact". It makes it their opinion.

FACT....I follow the Bible. Nothing more, nothing less...especially when it comes to man made religions who don't even follow Scripture because their man made laws and rules benefit them more if they don't!!!

If you can't handle it, too bad!

I hardly doubt that Christ would consider me part of either of those two organized religions. And since His opinion is what matters most to me, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks!

" She also didn't like me posting info about how 43% of women getting abortions claim to be Christians, nor my questioning one of her posts stating that "abortion is like a facelift"."

You'll have to provide a link showing what you quoted me saying. I recall saying it was elective surgery, but provide the link and I will rephrase.... otherwise, you need to admit you once again twisted my words around and stop.

Your next line is telling....

"I knew she didn't mean it that way...she meant it would be considered "elective" surgery in the house bill version"

Yet, you consistantly tried twisting my words around in true Woke fashion!!

I'm glad you finally admit it!

"yet she refuses to admit she was wrong in wording it that way.....The funny part was seeing someone who believe NO abortions should be allowed for any reason, then comparing that to a facelift. That she then became close friends and joined in with rw trolls attacking me, (who are not bothered by abortion at all), makes it all the more curious, eh?"

I'm allowed my opinion, Woke. If it coincides with what pro choice folks think about you, so be it.

You should probably examine yourself if people from both sides of the fence don't care for you.

Or are you one of those who thinks it's everyone else, and not yourself who has the problem????

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound? If no one talked to Woke, would he leave? Questions likely never to be answered.

He took the heat off you Spoke. I was enjoying calling you "Spokanus" even though I admit it was childish. We had a good fight starting until he came around and proved "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and even Everlong and I made peace.