Re: (OT) : Has Americanism Died in the Democrat Party of the USA ?


"-=jd=-" <jd770YOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns96DDC516BC0F6a216b130c132d203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon 26 Sep 2005 12:18:09a, "FDR"
> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:5EKZe.332$K91.206@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>>
>> "-=jd=-" <jd770YOUR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:Xns96DCE33E62F78a216b130c132d203@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:06:19p, "FDR"
>>> <_remove_spam_block_rzitka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:L3GZe.208$K91.169@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> {snippage}
>>>>
>>>> Federal agents arresting cilvilians because they legally are
>>>> protesting a Honey Baked ham company. Is is subversive to not like
>>>> ham? Arresting whoever they deem an enemy combatant, wether they are
>>>> or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Do you even know what they were charged with and why (facts, not your
>>> over-active emotional guesses)? Were they charged with "being a
>>> subversive" (sic)? Were they arrested as an enemy combatant? If not,
>>> then perhaps this is yet *another* example of you making an over-
>>> emotive, exaggerated, purely speculative, unsubstantiated, claim in your
>>> patented drama-queen fashion.
>>
>> They were arrested for looking suspicious because they dare take down
>> the licenses number of a federal agents car.
>
>
> Bzzzzzzt! That is incorrect! You have absolutely no idea what they were
> charged with, do you?

I know what they wer charged with. But they did take the paper with the
license number on it which leads me to believe they didn't like their
attitude so busted them.

>
>
>> Can you imagine that in AMerica it has come to that?
>
> There is no evidence that it has. Once again, you are reduced to over-
> exaggerating, over-emoting, and engaging in typical left-wing, drama-queen
> hysterics.
>
>
>
>> Two guys got arrested because they said
>> for a distance to Cheney "*** yourself" . Hey, in America, if the guys
>> in power don't like your message you just silence them by arresting
>> them. But you must think that freedom os speech is a quaint, but
>> unimportant thing.
>>
>
> If they were arrested, I doubt seriously they were charged with
> "Disrespect". Do you know what they were charged with,

They weren't and that's the thing. Secret Service went after them a while
later after they left the area. They were detained and then let go. Just
because they decided to use their right to free speech.

When Cheney uses his free speech, it's ok though.

> or like you have
> shown above, is this another case where you have absolutely no idea what
> they were charged with and you are going for maximum emotional
> "Drama-Queen" impact and making a purely speculative guess?

Why don't you go find out for yourself.

>
>
>
>>>
>>> Our actions are well grounded in reality. The left's reality dictates
>>> that we
>>> ignore the terrorists and hope they go away. I'll stick with the
>>> repub's reality, thank you very much...
>>
>> Yeah, the rights stance is to make the terrorists multiply. Good job
>> George!
>>
>
> Actually, the Iraqis despise the terrorist insurgents; They are being
> captured/killed at every engagement (Even the ISF are dominating them!);
> Terrorists are being actively pursued, captured/killed in both southwest
> and southeast asia in multiple countries; Their financial pipeline has
> been impaired; their command and control is close to non-existent; etc.
> etc. etc. Let me guess, you get your information from some reporter that
> rarely leaves their hotel! Heck - Even the dang *SAUDIS* are
> capturing/killing terrorists!!

They are killing themselves?


> Apparently, it would take a four-banger IED
> to tear those partisan blinders off of you...

It's not too hard to see the death toll and understand that terrorists are
multiplying. They are fanatics in that region.

>
>
>>> I'm not saying it was a cake-walk. I'm saying that the war had been
>>> ongoing
>>> before we entered the fray. We didn't start it, but we *did* finish it.
>>> We also had to keep fighting ad rounding up bad-guys for some time
>>> after it was
>>> declared "Won".
>>
>> We basically defeated most of the Japanese and German military in a
>> couple of years, and we can't even contain a country now. Well, maybe
>> we could have if Rumsfeld hadn't thought that smaler is better. Well,
>> maybe he got that idea from thonking about his *** size.
>>
>
> LOL!! Is that what I have reduced you to? Sophomoric"***" jokes? You
> should just go ahead and tattoo my name across your forehead...

Why, are you a *** too?

>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. All we ask is that they formulate some flavor of democracy, which
>>> they are doing. Some would argue that it's basically done!
>>
>> Once again, if the Democracy decides to be anti-AMerican, then that
>> would be ok since all that matters is it be a Deomacracy. Nothing more.
>> So sad.
>>
>
> More qualified and valid opinions vary significantly from yours...

I was asking your opinion.

>
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>> That would be the terrorist insurgents, which the Iraqis despise. Get
>>> your players straight.
>>
>> They despise them, but yet they are able to freely infiltrate.
>>
>
> Syria, Jordan, Iran, etc. are *desperately* trying to derail the Iraqis
> move to democracy. The Iraqis *despise* the terrorist insurgents and have
> turned on them. But, you are free to disregard that and continue hoping
> for
> the Iraqis to fail.
>
>
>>>>
>>>>> *spite* of your having hitched your little donkey to the cart of
>>>>> their failure.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have to hope for their failure.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of *course* you do. A win in Iraq equates to a win for Bush. Are you
>>> going to
>>> openly state, after all your posts to the contrary, that you are hoping
>>> for
>>> Bush to win in Iraq? Puh-leeeeze!!
>>
>> So wait, if I like it that we defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan, that
>> means I am in support of Bush.
>
> No, as you have indicated before, you would justify vengeance against the
> Taliban, not necessarily that you support Bush. You supported blasting the
> Taliban because you saw a direct link to 9/11 ad felt it was OK to "get
> even". You have *not* indicated support for blasting the Taliban because
> they were brutally oppressing their people.

It's not vengence, it's justice. If you consider it vengence then that's
your problem.

And once again, no one here cares about the Afghani people. Go take a poll
and that will be your answer.

> If you did, then you couldn't
> justify *not* supporting Iraq. What you fail to realize is that there is a
> larger cause being pursued, other than mere vengeance.
>
>
>> You know, I can say I am happy for us
>> that we got the Taliban, and at the same time realize that Iraq was a
>> bad idea. That's your problem jd, you think that somebody can be just
>> one thing or another.
>
> Nope, I call em' as I see em'. You either lack the mental capability to
> understand what the GWOT is all about, or due to your visceral hatred for
> Bush, you can't dig deep enough to find a way to stray from the DNC party
> line. I'm leaning toward the latter.

According to you the Global War on Terror is invading wherever we damn
please, for whatever damn reason, under the guise of promoting Democracy.
So how many wars will we be in jd? 20? 50? 100? You tell me how many we
need and how many American soldiers have to die to make you feel better.

>
>
>> I can't support one war and be against another?
>
> You will do whatever you want to do. I will point out that you have yet to
> demonstrate that you have any understanding of the situation, other than
> parroting the DNC party line.

I understand that we are invading countries based on faulty intelligence and
then covering our asses by saying how wonderful it is we are giving them the
prize of Democracy.

Honestly jd, tell me a country that doesn't have WMD, doesn't pose an
immediate threat and then ask people if you think we should invade those
countries because it gives them Democracy and in some oblique way helps in
the war on terror. Go ahead and name some countries and tell me how close
we are in invading them.

>
>
>> You think that we all must be for every single war no matter what
>> happens, or who is leading it, or however foolish it is?
>
> Nope. Show me wher I have ever stated, or even indicated that. I merely
> get
> to point out the arse-hats when I see them. Are you attempting to stifle
> *my* right to free speech?
>
>
>> You keep
>> evading this point.
>
> I haven't evaded anything. You are the one who keeps trying to change the
> subject (see the thread on Judge Roberts). This is the first time you've
> mentioned the point and I answered it!
>
>
>> Because I am anti Bush, you think that means I am
>> in favor of failure in Iraq. Or that I am in favor of failure in
>> Afghanistan. That's not the case. I was no fan of Bush when we invaded
>> Afghanistan, but I thought it was the right thing to do and he made a
>> good case for it. I was still no friend of George when we invaded Iraq,
>> and I was certainly doubtful of it but thought that they had made a good
>> case for the WMD so I supported it inititally. Then we invaded and no
>> WMD were to be found. I felt that the administration had lied to us,
>> and I felt Bush had not been right in sending us to war when we were in
>> no immediate treat.
>
> What about all the other reasons for invading Iraq? How did you "Feel"
> about them? Tell you what, when you can see past your emotions, let me
> know.

The other "reasons" didn't constitute an immediate threat, so didn't make
sense for us to invade at that point.

>
>
>> Ever since then I have seen the war as a disaster.
>> Bad intelligence, bad preperation, no exit strategy, and a President who
>> took opprotunity to use it to further his political career.
>
> The intel on *some* of the justification was flawed.

Some = all.

>The intel on actually
> prosecuting the war (for strategy and tactics) has been great. The prep
> was
> as good as the generals who planned the war *requested*. They couldn't
> (and
> didn't) ask for anything else.

So we won and we're ready to go.

> There is an exit strategy, just not an exit
> *schedule*

If Kerry hadsaid that you guys would have ripped him for such a response.

> which is probably what you meant to say. Nor should there be an
> exit schedule. The only people demanding an exit schedule are the folks
> who
> (undeniably) have no business prosecuting a war.

Which means we are there forever, or until all our kids are killed.

>
>
>> He's just a ploitician and doesn't care.
>
> Many people, including Iraqis, would heartily disagree with you on that
> point.
>
>
>> He certainly is not fiscally conservative,
>> and if you didn't know who he was you'd blame him for being a Democrat
>> with his big spending big government initiatives.
>
> So what? Show me a politician that refuses money. If there is any
> difference, it will likely be found in how/where he's spending it.
> Democrats would rather the money flow to their pet causes instead.
>
>
>> He uses God and whatever else he can get to garner votes for his
>> elections.
>
> So What? Democrats use Abortion-on-demand and welfare-bribery.
>
>
>> He's a plain old ploitician. Nothing more.
>
> He's unique! Just like every other politician in Washington D.C.!
>
>
>> And I believe he cares very little about the Iraqi people, only to the
>> extent that it furhters his agenda.
>>
>
> Many people, including Iraqis, would heartily disagree with you on that
> point.

That's because they don't know him.


>
>
> -=jd=-


.