Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Topic closed

2007-06-16 14:56:49
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640
1. We were talking about “People who protest the Blue Angels and then you showed up.


golgoj4 wrote:

To Hunter / Jumper, its not worth the time spent dissecting your post about semantics.

You cant re-write history, no matter how much you would like to. I find your conclusions on what a liberal is and why they 'hate us' to be laughable. Come on man, are you seriously that confused. Maybe go read some history books or something. Jeez, its like talking to a wall. I mean, i could cherry pick bs from your response all day, but then thats just a waste of bandwidth eh? I suppose I shall have to agree to disagree because there some people that just don't have the capacity to see beyond their own bs :shrugs: Thats what trolls are for i suppose.
I didn't " Re-write History " I voiced my opinion, and stated it as such.

                              Please read below.

Hunter wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

I suppose FDR and Truman, while liberals,
5. By today’s standards they were not , nor would they wish to be called such. IMHO
You can read. Right ?
I thought Liberal’s were so tolerant of divergent opinion, dissent and discourse ?

Or are you a total Hypocrite as well as uninformed ?
I don’t know what a Troll is, a Goblin ? a Monster ? Is that how we appear to you?  It explains all the fear.
Unless its another misspelling?

You don’t have time ? Try and counter just This one,

golgoj4 wrote:

That has got to be the most clueless statement i've heard here since 'they hate us for our freedom'

Hunter/jumper wrote:

They hate us for many reasons and Freedom, that is one of them.

To name a few… Women can drive, Vote, Paint their fingernails
( watch out for that one ladies . Punishment is having them pulled out  ! )   Marry without consent. Fuck out of wedlock. Say “No” to their husband.

These are all freedoms that they HATE and want to desperately to correct., even if it costs your life.
Just refute it using facts. Unless, you are so hopelessly lost and out of your depth.

Maybe you can “ agree to disagree”  because you are all out of credible responses, and it must have happened long before you showed up here.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-06-16 15:09:13)

2007-06-16 19:49:19
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina
To Hunter/Jumper...

FDR was most definitely a liberal in economic policy.  He was borderline socialist.  I don't know as much about his social views though.

Truman continued the FDR tradition of big government, but he was also a social liberal.  He committed political suicide by racially integrating much of the government and set the stage for the civil rights movement by doing so.

So yeah, they'd still be liberals by today's standards.

It's not a matter of liberal being bad or conservative being good.  It's just a matter of progressing things, which sometimes requires liberal policy and other times requires conservative policy.  Of course, "progression" is a subjective term that is defined by the individual.
2007-06-17 09:04:02
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640

Turquoise wrote:

To Hunter/Jumper...

FDR was most definitely a liberal in economic policy.  He was borderline socialist.  I don't know as much about his social views though.

Truman continued the FDR tradition of big government, but he was also a social liberal.  He committed political suicide by racially integrating much of the government and set the stage for the civil rights movement by doing so.

So yeah, they'd still be liberals by today's standards.

It's not a matter of liberal being bad or conservative being good.  It's just a matter of progressing things, which sometimes requires liberal policy and other times requires conservative policy.  Of course, "progression" is a subjective term that is defined by the individual.
You back your arguments with very solid points.

However I think the fact that they would fight a WAR would exclude them form the club.

They would be thrown to the wolves by their own party. Look how much hillary's War vote has cost her.
Her very base is fleeing her camp.

Joe Lieberman had to change parties.

You really think they would let F.D.R. ( substitute  Bush ) hush up the fact that U Boats were sinking our ships off the coast of N.J.  at a rate faster than we could build them?

Would they really have reported the battle of the bulge as a Heroic victory for FDR (substitute Bush )?

The Bulge/Ardennes Offensive Differed very little From the Tet offensive in result yet with the liberals in power, the latter was held up as proof all was lost.

What do you think the Liberals would have done to Truman ( substitute  Bush )  if " His own Ally turned on him “ and caused the Berlin Airlift ? Would they Hail the Berlin airlift as a great achievement ?

Honestly

I hold to my statement.
2007-06-17 09:05:27
stkhoplite
Banned
+564|6765|Sheffield-England
San Francisco <3

Must have been there at least 10 times in my 1 year lifetime


lol xD my cousins live there
2007-06-17 16:22:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To Hunter/Jumper...

FDR was most definitely a liberal in economic policy.  He was borderline socialist.  I don't know as much about his social views though.

Truman continued the FDR tradition of big government, but he was also a social liberal.  He committed political suicide by racially integrating much of the government and set the stage for the civil rights movement by doing so.

So yeah, they'd still be liberals by today's standards.

It's not a matter of liberal being bad or conservative being good.  It's just a matter of progressing things, which sometimes requires liberal policy and other times requires conservative policy.  Of course, "progression" is a subjective term that is defined by the individual.
You back your arguments with very solid points.

However I think the fact that they would fight a WAR would exclude them form the club.

They would be thrown to the wolves by their own party. Look how much hillary's War vote has cost her.
Her very base is fleeing her camp.

Joe Lieberman had to change parties.

You really think they would let F.D.R. ( substitute  Bush ) hush up the fact that U Boats were sinking our ships off the coast of N.J.  at a rate faster than we could build them?

Would they really have reported the battle of the bulge as a Heroic victory for FDR (substitute Bush )?

The Bulge/Ardennes Offensive Differed very little From the Tet offensive in result yet with the liberals in power, the latter was held up as proof all was lost.

What do you think the Liberals would have done to Truman ( substitute  Bush )  if " His own Ally turned on him “ and caused the Berlin Airlift ? Would they Hail the Berlin airlift as a great achievement ?

Honestly

I hold to my statement.
If you're trying to say that none of the Democrats are hawks, you're quite wrong.  Look at Hillary -- she's the frontrunner of the Democratic presidential campaign.  She may be losing some of her base, but more than just liberals are anti-war.

Plenty of old school conservatives like Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, and Patrick Buchanan are anti-war.

War doesn't define someone as liberal or conservative, but unfortunately, the Republicans have become the party of interventionism.  I highly suggest they pay attention to what happened to the Democratic party as a result of Vietnam.

Like Vietnam, the quagmire of Iraq will certainly weaken the trust people have in Republicans, as it should.  People are slowly realizing that war should be a last resort, rather than a first one.  That's neither liberal nor conservative -- it's sensible.

By the way, if you're suggesting that censorship is the way to win a war like Iraq, then....  let's just say you may get your wish soon.

If you bribe the right media leaders, you can cover up anything.  It's been done several times before, only to have the truth quietly revealed many years later.

In summary, I wish I could say that the Democrats were anti-war, but they aren't.  In fact, they're the ones who started this whole interventionism thing in the Cold War.  Bush has cribbed most of his foreign policy from JFK and LBJ.

If the Republicans were smart, they'd put that behind them and wise up to the fact that domestic defense makes far more sense than pre-emptive strikes.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-06-17 16:23:16)

2007-06-17 16:31:42
dubbs
Member
+105|6918|Lexington, KY
Remember we are talking about the same people that banned the military from recruiting on college campuses.  I would not expect anything less from San Fran.  I say lets kick them out of the Union.
2007-06-17 16:44:21
*TA* Jhanfosho
Member
+0|6453|Beaumont, TX

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Fucking.Hippies.
i <3 you!
2007-06-18 14:50:07
golgoj4
Member
+51|7060|North Hollywood
I never knew hippies were so feared in the rest of the nation. You would think they were worse than al queda
2007-06-18 14:58:24
golgoj4
Member
+51|7060|North Hollywood

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

1. We were talking about “People who protest the Blue Angels and then you showed up.


golgoj4 wrote:

To Hunter / Jumper, its not worth the time spent dissecting your post about semantics.

You cant re-write history, no matter how much you would like to. I find your conclusions on what a liberal is and why they 'hate us' to be laughable. Come on man, are you seriously that confused. Maybe go read some history books or something. Jeez, its like talking to a wall. I mean, i could cherry pick bs from your response all day, but then thats just a waste of bandwidth eh? I suppose I shall have to agree to disagree because there some people that just don't have the capacity to see beyond their own bs :shrugs: Thats what trolls are for i suppose.
I didn't " Re-write History " I voiced my opinion, and stated it as such.

                              Please read below.

Hunter wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

I suppose FDR and Truman, while liberals,
5. By today’s standards they were not , nor would they wish to be called such. IMHO
You can read. Right ?
I thought Liberal’s were so tolerant of divergent opinion, dissent and discourse ?

Or are you a total Hypocrite as well as uninformed ?
I don’t know what a Troll is, a Goblin ? a Monster ? Is that how we appear to you?  It explains all the fear.
Unless its another misspelling?

You don’t have time ? Try and counter just This one,

golgoj4 wrote:

That has got to be the most clueless statement i've heard here since 'they hate us for our freedom'

Hunter/jumper wrote:

They hate us for many reasons and Freedom, that is one of them.

To name a few… Women can drive, Vote, Paint their fingernails
( watch out for that one ladies . Punishment is having them pulled out  ! )   Marry without consent. Fuck out of wedlock. Say “No” to their husband.

These are all freedoms that they HATE and want to desperately to correct., even if it costs your life.
Just refute it using facts. Unless, you are so hopelessly lost and out of your depth.

Maybe you can “ agree to disagree”  because you are all out of credible responses, and it must have happened long before you showed up here.
No, I agree to disagree because thats the nice way of saying FUCK OFF to a troll who demands proof yet whatever he spouts is never backed up by more than his own words. Kinda funny you demand something that you have yet to provide yourself. I guess my mistake in responding to you was assuming you had a basic understanding of history, guess its not the case. Anyways, theres no cowardice here as you were so free to go on about in your private messages (none of which i asked for). Another note: When people give you karma, it doesn't mean I suddenly think of you as more credible. Sorry if the karma system somehow gave you that illusion. So, Just like i've asked before in the pms, stop sending me messages trying to prove how much you think you know. its annoying. seriously. If your so right, go fix iraq?
2007-06-18 15:19:46
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640

Turquoise wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

To Hunter/Jumper...

FDR was most definitely a liberal in economic policy.  He was borderline socialist.  I don't know as much about his social views though.

Truman continued the FDR tradition of big government, but he was also a social liberal.  He committed political suicide by racially integrating much of the government and set the stage for the civil rights movement by doing so.

So yeah, they'd still be liberals by today's standards.

It's not a matter of liberal being bad or conservative being good.  It's just a matter of progressing things, which sometimes requires liberal policy and other times requires conservative policy.  Of course, "progression" is a subjective term that is defined by the individual.
You back your arguments with very solid points.

However I think the fact that they would fight a WAR would exclude them form the club.

They would be thrown to the wolves by their own party. Look how much hillary's War vote has cost her.
Her very base is fleeing her camp.

Joe Lieberman had to change parties.

You really think they would let F.D.R. ( substitute  Bush ) hush up the fact that U Boats were sinking our ships off the coast of N.J.  at a rate faster than we could build them?

Would they really have reported the battle of the bulge as a Heroic victory for FDR (substitute Bush )?

The Bulge/Ardennes Offensive Differed very little From the Tet offensive in result yet with the liberals in power, the latter was held up as proof all was lost.

What do you think the Liberals would have done to Truman ( substitute  Bush )  if " His own Ally turned on him “ and caused the Berlin Airlift ? Would they Hail the Berlin airlift as a great achievement ?

Honestly

I hold to my statement.
If you're trying to say that none of the Democrats are hawks, you're quite wrong.
No I was saying …..
                             Please read below.

Hunter wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

I suppose FDR and Truman, while liberals..etc,
5. By today’s standards they were not , nor would they wish to be called such. IMHO
Truman dropped the Atomic bomb twice, two different cities. To Him The American Fighting man was his charge and his first concern. Not our enemies or even the enemies children. So be it.

Today’s American Liberal … Really

Turquoise wrote:

Plenty of old school conservatives like Ron Paul, Chuck Hagel, and Patrick Buchanan are anti-war.
Noted , that was not my point. Also these people are looking for a slot to run in.
Expect someone to Run a Strong Pro life platform to usurp Rudy Guiliani by exploiting his weakness in this area. The just want to get on the ticket right now. We will see.

Turquoise wrote:

War doesn't define someone as liberal or conservative, but unfortunately, the Republicans have become the party of interventionism.
Thank god. We desperately needed intervention since WTC 93

Turquoise wrote:

I highly suggest they pay attention to what happened to the Democratic party as a result of Vietnam.
Americans hold The Democrats responsible for losing Vietnam. They will hold the accountable party to task over Iraq as well. We in America know which party fosters and owns defeat. We hate to lose and loath people who spread the enemy’s propaganda while our Forces are in harms way.

Turquoise wrote:

Like Vietnam, the quagmire of Iraq will certainly weaken the trust people have in Republicans, as it should.
Not everyone agrees Outside of BF2S that Iraq is a quagmire. This is your opinion not mine.
We shall see if and who it weakens Americas Trust in during 2008 elections.

Turquoise wrote:

People are slowly realizing that war should be a last resort, rather than a first one.  That's neither liberal nor conservative -- it's sensible.
Glad we agree on that ! Sanctions were flouted by everyone involved including  European nations, they weren’t working.

Turquoise wrote:

By the way, if you're suggesting that censorship is the way to win a war like Iraq, then....  let's just say you may get your wish soon.
I didn’t say that.  ( Geez is this CamPoe ? )But Censorship has its place in War, as does propaganda. There is such a thing as a Military secret when lives are at stake. Selling out your own countrymen for political gain should be met with the very harshest punishments in my opinion.

Turquoise wrote:

If you bribe the right media leaders, you can cover up anything.  It's been done several times before, only to have the truth quietly revealed many years later.
You can fool all the people some of the Time. Some of the people All the time . . . . A. Lincoln

Turquoise wrote:

In summary, I wish I could say that the Democrats were anti-war, but they aren't.  In fact, they're the ones who started this whole interventionism thing in the Cold War.  Bush has cribbed most of his foreign policy from JFK and LBJ.
Noted, Not wholly  accurate, off topic.

Turquoise wrote:

If the Republicans were smart, they'd put that behind them and wise up to the fact that domestic defense makes far more sense than pre-emptive strikes.
Like an Anti Missile System ? lol

Technology always favors the attacker. Wrong place for this discussion.

We were talking about people who Protest “ The Blue Angles “

Very valid points you made By the way

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-06-18 15:22:19)

2007-06-18 15:21:17
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7048

golgoj4 wrote:

If your so right, go fix iraq?
Likewise
2007-06-18 17:02:29
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640

usmarine2005 wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

If your so right, go fix iraq?
Likewise
1. We were talking about People who protest “The Blue Angels “  We all know who they are.

2. Fix Iraq ? Not my job. Had they asked me. I would have handled it differently. Perhaps not better. But I would have had different goals. Think Berlin.

3. Wait and see, by my estimate, early on I said it would take 8 to 10 years, Iraq isn't now and never was my concern. I am not so concerned that our enemies are now fighting and killing their own people. My concern was Terror attacks on America. Down from 8 in as many years to One 6 years past. That kind of math works well for me.
2007-06-18 17:06:51
Smitty5613
Member
+46|6813|Middle of nowhere, California

InnerMonkey wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

InnerMonkey wrote:

meh, it's California.  It's rare to hear of something good coming from there.
So what does your corner of the world contribute? Us leaving the US behind = 6th largest economy in the world. We obviously do something usefull around here. Dont get your panties in a bunch when someone says something you dont like. That just makes you sound  less American and more like a crazy islamic nut who cant take a joke and goes insane.
Wow, lots of assumptions.  "Us" vs. the rest of the country was a terrible way to start a comment btw.  You're actually proving the point you think I was making.  Kudos on that one.  I'm sorry that you feel California is more successful than most of the world and therefore I don't have a right to a comment.  Further, you equate usefulness to wealth, and I think that's pretty sad.  Then again, that comment came from someone in Hollywood, home of the vapid and shallow.  Whatever would I do without another shitty movie, boy band orgy, or tainted vegetable.  Tell ya what. . . when the majority of the country can be asked about California and the conversation not invariably steer toward soccer mom laws and celebrities, I'll take your comment more seriously.  Until then, I'm sticking with the majority and I'll continue to chuckle at the state ran by the Terminator.

Oh, my panties aren't bunched.  It's hard to read so much into my mood through one short sarcastic sentence, so I'll cut you some slack on that one.  Anyone, even someone in California, makes a mistake from time to time.  I'll not think you any less American or more Islamic for it. (wtf on that one btw, country vs. religion...ooookay)

I stand by my comment.  It's rare to hear of something good coming from California.
well, there are nice trout creeks in the northern part.... and hunting is good there too.... ur thinkin nothing good comes from southern california(from Sacramento, down)
2007-06-18 17:07:50
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640
I always loved it there.
2007-06-18 18:50:36
iamangry
Member
+59|6931|The United States of America
I have a dumb question, and I expect to get flamed for it, but I'm gonna ask it anyhow. 

Why do those people think that they can ban military people from their schools or planes from the skies because they're recruiting, but think it's wrong to ban gay people from getting married or adopting?  Aren't both simply the same package with a different wrapping?
2007-06-19 14:30:30
golgoj4
Member
+51|7060|North Hollywood

usmarine2005 wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

If your so right, go fix iraq?
Likewise
Never claimed to know everything and had the answer.

Do you?
2007-06-19 15:04:12
The_Mac
Member
+96|6511

fadedsteve wrote:

The fact that some left wing liberal douche bags have hijacked the city makes me incensed!
San Francisco and Berkeley are headed by the school institutions, and these institutions are juvenile and incapable of doing anything productive. It's to be noted that Berkeley and Frisco both have a high population of homeless peeps.
2007-06-19 15:34:15
skratch-x
Member
+25|6923|NY, USA

S3v3N wrote:

If only I could arrest people for being an Idiot.. our jails/prisons would definitely be filled.
they're already rather full ;[
2007-06-19 15:58:52
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7048

golgoj4 wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

If your so right, go fix iraq?
Likewise
Never claimed to know everything and had the answer.

Do you?
Could have fooled me.
2007-06-19 17:07:39
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Truman dropped the Atomic bomb twice, two different cities. To Him The American Fighting man was his charge and his first concern. Not our enemies or even the enemies children. So be it.
The Japanese were a conventional enemy.  Terrorists aren't.  You can't just nuke a city if a very small portion of it consists of terrorists.

Now, if the majority of a city consists of terrorists, then yeah...  bomb the shit out of it.  Nuking would still be a bad idea though.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Thank god. We desperately needed intervention since WTC 93.
I hope you realize that the reason for the bombings had to do with previous intervention.  Granted, I supported the first Gulf War.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Americans hold The Democrats responsible for losing Vietnam. They will hold the accountable party to task over Iraq as well. We in America know which party fosters and owns defeat. We hate to lose and loath people who spread the enemy’s propaganda while our Forces are in harms way.
The only people who foster and own defeat are the ones who get us into these messes -- people like Paul Bremer, who is utterly incompetent.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Not everyone agrees Outside of BF2S that Iraq is a quagmire. This is your opinion not mine.
It also happens to be the opinion of most Americans.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

There is such a thing as a Military secret when lives are at stake. Selling out your own countrymen for political gain should be met with the very harshest punishments in my opinion.
I agree, but there's a big difference between revealing the secrets of how we catch terrorists with financial records and revealing how shitty of a job we're doing in terms of establishing a self-sufficient government in Iraq.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Like an Anti Missile System ? lol

Technology always favors the attacker. Wrong place for this discussion.

We were talking about people who Protest “ The Blue Angles “

Very valid points you made By the way
Thanks, I agree with you on some of your points, and you won't get any resistance from me on the missile defense system funding.  That's one of the few exorbitantly expensive military projects that I support.
2007-06-19 17:07:53
jonsimon
Member
+224|6781

usmarine2005 wrote:

Safety:       

Maybe these idiots are unaware of 15 year old 747's flying over their heads into San Fran.

Fuel Waste:

Maybe these idiots ignore the fact that celebrities and rich people fly alone on private jets.
Maybe these idiots do not realize their own governor uses private jets ALL the time, and requires back-up aircraft be in position just in case his breaks.  That is a huge waste of fuel.
Safety: 747s don't do flips.

Fuel waste: But if we policed private jets you would call them commies.
2007-06-19 17:18:51
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7048

jonsimon wrote:

Safety: 747s don't do flips.

Fuel waste: But if we policed private jets you would call them commies.
No...but some are very very very old, especially cargo and foreign carriers.

I would not call them commies, I would call it consistent at least.  Make the little man buy hybrids and ride buses, while the rich people fly alone in jets just doesn't fly.<-- pun intended.
2007-06-20 15:41:40
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Truman dropped the Atomic bomb twice, two different cities. To Him The American Fighting man was his charge and his first concern. Not our enemies or even the enemies children. So be it.

Turquoise wrote:

The Japanese were a conventional enemy.  Terrorists aren't.  You can't just nuke a city if a very small portion of it consists of terrorists..
Again your drifting of the topic. Is this deliberate? This is the CamPoe technique.

Read what I said above. It was about Truman not qualifying as a liberal as we know them today.
It is the Liberals who hold protest rallies on the anniversaries of Hiroshima.

Turquoise wrote:

You can't just nuke a city if a very small portion of it consists of terrorists..
Yes you can. I wouldn’t, Nor would I  advise or condone it, but you could.

Terrorists  would love to nuke a city regardless of who lived their. We may yet have to play by their rules.

Turquoise wrote:

Now, if the majority of a city consists of terrorists, then yeah...  bomb the shit out of it.  Nuking would still be a bad idea though..
ok..

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Thank god. We desperately needed intervention since WTC 93.

Turquoise wrote:

I hope you realize that the reason for the bombings had to do with previous intervention.  Granted, I supported the first Gulf War..
what “ previous intervention ” ?

I think we all know the Arab worlds hate for us sprung from our support for Israel.
The US media who drove this frenzied alliance for the past 50 odd years
is curiously silent on the topic now.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Americans hold The Democrats responsible for losing Vietnam. They will hold the accountable party to task over Iraq as well. We in America know which party fosters and owns defeat. We hate to lose and loath people who spread the enemy’s propaganda while our Forces are in harms way.

Turquoise wrote:

The only people who foster and own defeat are the ones who get us into these messes -- people like Paul Bremer, who is utterly incompetent..
Your opinion, Wait and see.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Not everyone agrees Outside of BF2S that Iraq is a quagmire. This is your opinion not mine.
.

Turquoise wrote:

It also happens to be the opinion of most Americans..
The media has a heavy left slant. It just depends who you listen to. Most of America is on board in my opinion. Watch and see this fall when the time to put up or shut up about the War on Terror becomes less abstract.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

There is such a thing as a Military secret when lives are at stake. Selling out your own countrymen for political gain should be met with the very harshest punishments in my opinion.
.

Turquoise wrote:

I agree, but there's a big difference between revealing the secrets of how we catch terrorists with financial records and revealing how shitty of a job we're doing in terms of establishing a self-sufficient government in Iraq..
I think it was obvious to you I was speaking about the former, and we all know who let the word out on that.

Turquoise wrote:

Thanks, I agree with you on some of your points, and you won't get any resistance from me on the missile defense system funding.  That's one of the few exorbitantly expensive military projects that I support.
Noted !
You notice the Insulting Coward wouldn't address his " They hate us for our freedom is a joke " remark and has since fled the post. it’s a pleasure talking to you by the way !

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2007-06-20 15:47:40)

2007-06-20 16:22:38
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6691|North Carolina

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Again your drifting of the topic. Is this deliberate? This is the CamPoe technique.

Read what I said above. It was about Truman not qualifying as a liberal as we know them today.
It is the Liberals who hold protest rallies on the anniversaries of Hiroshima.
Those aren't liberals; those are idiots who call themselves liberals.  They're kind of like the "conservatives" who are part of Fred Phelps's group.  I wouldn't consider them representative of real conservatives.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Terrorists  would love to nuke a city regardless of who lived their. We may yet have to play by their rules.
Let's hope not, because then, how do we differentiate ourselves from them, if we operate by the same logic?

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Now, if the majority of a city consists of terrorists, then yeah...  bomb the shit out of it.  Nuking would still be a bad idea though..
ok....
Seriously...  air strikes and firebombing is one thing, but nuking is bad for numerous reasons.  Fallout can travel for hundreds of miles, for starters.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

what “ previous intervention ” ?
The first Gulf War and the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia afterwards.  Osama was particularly pissed at our presence in Saudi Arabia.  Now, I'm not saying that we should appease that fucker, but what we should understand by now is that intervention leads to being attacked.  The more we get involved, the more enemies we create.  So, if we have to get involved for whatever reason, we'd best continue doing our best to make more friends than enemies, because the enemies are gonna keep coming.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

I think we all know the Arab worlds hate for us sprung from our support for Israel.
The US media who drove this frenzied alliance for the past 50 odd years is curiously silent on the topic now.
This is true concerning many groups, but Osama was solely focused on our presence in Saudi Arabia.  He basically thought we were corrupting his country.  He's obviously full of shit, but I don't think he really cares so much about our relations with Israel.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The only people who foster and own defeat are the ones who get us into these messes -- people like Paul Bremer, who is utterly incompetent..
Your opinion, Wait and see.
If the American people are dumb enough to fall for patriotic warmongering for a 3rd consecutive time, then I will be in Canada very shortly afterwards.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

The media has a heavy left slant. It just depends who you listen to. Most of America is on board in my opinion. Watch and see this fall when the time to put up or shut up about the War on Terror becomes less abstract..
About that left slant...  why was the media so complicit during the buildup to the war?  The media is just sensationalist, corporate, and full of shit.

I don't buy the left slant thing or that the average American is "on board" with this war. If they are, they're even dumber than I imagined.  If they still support this war at this point, then fuck...   I'll be happy to see their money continue to get sucked away into this money pit that is now Iraq.  I'm not gonna put up with it much longer though.  If we're still in Iraq in '09, I'm fucking out of here.  Canada FTW.

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

Noted !
You notice the Insulting Coward wouldn't address his " They hate us for our freedom is a joke " remark and has since fled the post. it’s a pleasure talking to you by the way !
Thanks...  we may be ideologically polar opposites, but at least we can debate things rationally... 
2010-03-13 08:48:49
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6640

golgoj4 wrote:

Hunter/Jumper wrote:

1. We were talking about “People who protest the Blue Angels and then you showed up.


golgoj4 wrote:

To Hunter / Jumper, its not worth the time spent dissecting your post about semantics.

You cant re-write history, no matter how much you would like to. I find your conclusions on what a liberal is and why they 'hate us' to be laughable. Come on man, are you seriously that confused. Maybe go read some history books or something. Jeez, its like talking to a wall. I mean, i could cherry pick bs from your response all day, but then thats just a waste of bandwidth eh? I suppose I shall have to agree to disagree because there some people that just don't have the capacity to see beyond their own bs :shrugs: Thats what trolls are for i suppose.
I didn't " Re-write History " I voiced my opinion, and stated it as such.

                              Please read below.

Hunter wrote:

5. By today’s standards they were not , nor would they wish to be called such. IMHO
You can read. Right ?
I thought Liberal’s were so tolerant of divergent opinion, dissent and discourse ?

Or are you a total Hypocrite as well as uninformed ?
I don’t know what a Troll is, a Goblin ? a Monster ? Is that how we appear to you?  It explains all the fear.
Unless its another misspelling?

You don’t have time ? Try and counter just This one,

golgoj4 wrote:

That has got to be the most clueless statement i've heard here since 'they hate us for our freedom'

Hunter/jumper wrote:

They hate us for many reasons and Freedom, that is one of them.

To name a few… Women can drive, Vote, Paint their fingernails
( watch out for that one ladies . Punishment is having them pulled out  ! )   Marry without consent. Fuck out of wedlock. Say “No” to their husband.

These are all freedoms that they HATE and want to desperately to correct., even if it costs your life.
Just refute it using facts. Unless, you are so hopelessly lost and out of your depth.

Maybe you can “ agree to disagree”  because you are all out of credible responses, and it must have happened long before you showed up here.
No, I agree to disagree because thats the nice way of saying FUCK OFF to a troll who demands proof yet whatever he spouts is never backed up by more than his own words. Kinda funny you demand something that you have yet to provide yourself. I guess my mistake in responding to you was assuming you had a basic understanding of history, guess its not the case. Anyways, theres no cowardice here as you were so free to go on about in your private messages (none of which i asked for). Another note: When people give you karma, it doesn't mean I suddenly think of you as more credible. Sorry if the karma system somehow gave you that illusion. So, Just like i've asked before in the pms, stop sending me messages trying to prove how much you think you know. its annoying. seriously. If your so right, go fix iraq?
1.We won in Iraq !, though didn't take Ten Years. So I guess you were wrong and I was right.
2. I only sent you private messages becuase I didn't want you to be exposed and humiliated in a Public Forum, and
3. also becuase your posts Drift far off the Topic we were dicusing - -
( and see if the sounds familur when I say it for the 23 time ?)

Banning The Blue Angels

   jeez .. .wata dolt.

Last edited by Hunter/Jumper (2010-03-13 08:49:56)

Topic closed

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard