Sarah Palin Says Independence Day Is For Remembering When Jesus Led The Revolution

[wkmac]

oh dear,we actually agree on something in here

Nader shows the fakery of the so-called left as well as the false nature of the so-called right. It's why both political narratives hate him so much and thus why I respect him.



I look forward to your howls!

 

[oldngray]

Nader shows the fakery of the so-called left as well as the false nature of the so-called right. It's why both political narratives hate him so much and thus why I respect him.



I look forward to your howls!

I miss your point. Line up Paul, Nader, and Kucinich to achieve what exactly?

 

[wkmac]

Think Federal Reserve.

 

[oldngray]

Think Federal Reserve.

Why would Ron Paul consult those two about the Federal Reserve? I have already stated my opinion of Nader and I remember what a clown Kucinich was in Cleveland.

 

[wkmac]

Why would Ron Paul consult those two about the Federal Reserve? I have already stated my opinion of Nader and I remember what a clown Kucinich was in Cleveland.

WHOOSH! You really are trapped by the narrative aren't you.

 

[oldngray]

WHOOSH! You really are trapped by the narrative aren't you.

No, I think you have a fixed mindset here.

 

[wkmac]

No, I think you have a fixed mindset here.

I attack both sides equally, how so?

 

[moreluck]

Kucinich started very, very young. I remember him being something in Cleveland at a very young age....councilman or something. He's weird.

 

[oldngray]

I attack both sides equally, how so?

I agree you are pretty much an anarchist.

 

[wkmac]

Kucinich started very, very young. I remember him being something in Cleveland at a very young age....councilman or something. He's weird.

That all may be true but if he sez something correct, how does him being weird make it wrong?

 

[moreluck]

I don't listen to weirdos?

 

[wkmac]

I agree you are pretty much an anarchist.

OK but how does that make my mindset fixed? Anarchist by definition rejects hierarchy and those who demand to rule others so if I think all people are free to live as they please while having no right to tell or demand of others in how they should think or live. Seems to me in my acceptance of such a vast diversity of lifestyle and methods to achieve those ends, fixed I'm not. You on the other hand demand a compulsory state that would enforce your will on others who would choose to live otherwise all based on the outcome of a vote. You even support the use of violence to those ends in re-enforcing the state's exclusive monopoly to force others to your desires. You reject the principle of self ownership and self governance by the simple fact of forcing others to your reality by what you desire in the voting booth.

Thus I see no difference between you and those Obamabots you throw rocks at.

So tell me again who here is the one that is fixed?

 

[wkmac]

I don't listen to weirdos?

Me neither but sometimes I mess up and do so. Like right now.

 

[oldngray]

OK but how does that make my mindset fixed? Anarchist by definition rejects hierarchy and those who demand to rule others so if I think all people are free to live as they please while having no right to tell or demand of others in how they should think or live. Seems to me in my acceptance of such a vast diversity of lifestyle and methods to achieve those ends, fixed I'm not. You on the other hand demand a compulsory state that would enforce your will on others who would choose to live otherwise all based on the outcome of a vote. You even support the use of violence to those ends in re-enforcing the state's exclusive monopoly to force others to your desires. You reject the principle of self ownership and self governance by the simple fact of forcing others to your reality by what you desire in the voting booth.

Thus I see no difference between you and those Obamabots you throw rocks at.

So tell me again who here is the one that is fixed?

 

[wkmac]

I expected no less!

 

[bbsam]

What's so wrong with the Federal Reserve anyway? Because they artificially make up what stuff is worth? So what? Gold is only worth something because people say it is and that too is subjective day to day. All economics is made up.

 

[wkmac]

What's so wrong with the Federal Reserve anyway? Because they artificially make up what stuff is worth? So what? Gold is only worth something because people say it is and that too is subjective day to day. All economics is made up.

Nothing, not a thing. Why would you think otherwise? Relax. Fire up the grill, enjoy a cool beverage. All is well. That other stuff we actually know deep down means nothing in our lives or to our condition.

LOOK! Sarah Palin is about to say something silly again so batter up. We both know our world is greatly more effected by her than anything else.

 

[bbsam]

Nothing, not a thing. Why would you think otherwise? Relax. Fire up the grill, enjoy a cool beverage. All is well. That other stuff we actually know deep down means nothing in our lives or to our condition.

LOOK! Sarah Palin is about to say something silly again so batter up. We both know our world is greatly more effected by her than anything else.

Thought so.

 

[10 point]

10 point, lets be clear. POWELL was against the war from the jump and he has said so, but unfortunately, he was a part of the administration at the time, and he simply had to do what he was told to do.

Yes, did he speak about weapons of mass destruction? YES he did. Did he believe it? NO he didnt. Did he want a war in Iraq? NO he didnt. Furthering with "if we break it, we own it".

Its clear and the record is abundantly clear, that there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to our invasion.

The war was a money making scheme and it cost us thousands of americans lives and over two hundred thousand iraqi civilians lives. The war cost us 3 trillion dollars and we accomplished nothing.

As for Powell, when he stepped down, the BUSH administration was quick to put Condoliar Rice in Powells place to carry on the scam. She had no problem speaking about chemical weapons and such, and she kept up the scam on the american people.

Those on the right wing bought into this lie wholeheartedly, and today, they still do. Just look at your posts, and OLDGRAY, and AV8, and REALBROWN. Your still convinced there was a justification for this war and the facts prove that there wasnt.

But, now, we are haunted by Powells words that "if we break it , we own it".

All we did was destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, leave it in poverty, install a puppet government with a leader who was friendly to us and Iran and bad for the people.

Now the country is living in the shambles that "WE" created by our "shock and awe".

Saddam, as a sunni, was a majority leader, but he had the country under control. There were no car bombings, no suicide bombings, no shootings and no religious factional shootings.

Yes, back under the reagan administration, with the help of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the USA with Reagans approval, sent chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the iranian military, and he did. But, anyone above a 5 IQ knows that chemical weapons have a shelf life of less than 10 months, and saddam had those pesky kurds to deal with in the north.

Oil rich lands is what Saddam wanted, along with the help of the oil men of the USA.

So why not use the Chemical weapons on the kurds that the USA proudly gave to him? They authorized the use of the weapons in the first place.

Saddam used the USA chemical weapons on the kurds and killed approx 7500 people in two strikes. The number of people killed with our poison gas is always exaggerated by the right wing. I have heard near a million people killed with chemical weapons by right wing people.

Of course, that isnt true.

The war wasnt suppose to cost us any money, and we were sold ( by the bush administration) that OIL was going to come to the USA in exchange for our help.

Well, as of today, we get ZERO OIL from Iraq.

Lets be honest, the iraq war was a huge waste of money and soldiers lives, but isnt that the case with every war?

TOS.

If you reread my posts you will see that I agree that we should've kept our guys out of Iraq.
Our aircraft carriers could have driven our point home.

Libya came to an understanding of what a spanking was in the 80s. There were no American boots on their turf.

You have some good points but if you (referring to Powell) are a man and you don't agree with policy, disagree and step down.

I know what I heard him say. I watched him explicitly because Rumsfeld, IMO, was not the professional authority of this topic from the get go.

Back to Palin. You're whipping a dead filly.

 

[10 point]

10 point, lets be clear. POWELL was against the war from the jump and he has said so, but unfortunately, he was a part of the administration at the time, and he simply had to do what he was told to do.

Yes, did he speak about weapons of mass destruction? YES he did. Did he believe it? NO he didnt. Did he want a war in Iraq? NO he didnt. Furthering with "if we break it, we own it".

Its clear and the record is abundantly clear, that there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq prior to our invasion.

The war was a money making scheme and it cost us thousands of americans lives and over two hundred thousand iraqi civilians lives. The war cost us 3 trillion dollars and we accomplished nothing.

As for Powell, when he stepped down, the BUSH administration was quick to put Condoliar Rice in Powells place to carry on the scam. She had no problem speaking about chemical weapons and such, and she kept up the scam on the american people.

Those on the right wing bought into this lie wholeheartedly, and today, they still do. Just look at your posts, and OLDGRAY, and AV8, and REALBROWN. Your still convinced there was a justification for this war and the facts prove that there wasnt.

But, now, we are haunted by Powells words that "if we break it , we own it".

All we did was destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, leave it in poverty, install a puppet government with a leader who was friendly to us and Iran and bad for the people.

Now the country is living in the shambles that "WE" created by our "shock and awe".

Saddam, as a sunni, was a majority leader, but he had the country under control. There were no car bombings, no suicide bombings, no shootings and no religious factional shootings.

Yes, back under the reagan administration, with the help of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the USA with Reagans approval, sent chemical weapons to Saddam to use on the iranian military, and he did. But, anyone above a 5 IQ knows that chemical weapons have a shelf life of less than 10 months, and saddam had those pesky kurds to deal with in the north.

Oil rich lands is what Saddam wanted, along with the help of the oil men of the USA.

So why not use the Chemical weapons on the kurds that the USA proudly gave to him? They authorized the use of the weapons in the first place.

Saddam used the USA chemical weapons on the kurds and killed approx 7500 people in two strikes. The number of people killed with our poison gas is always exaggerated by the right wing. I have heard near a million people killed with chemical weapons by right wing people.

Of course, that isnt true.

The war wasnt suppose to cost us any money, and we were sold ( by the bush administration) that OIL was going to come to the USA in exchange for our help.

Well, as of today, we get ZERO OIL from Iraq.

Lets be honest, the iraq war was a huge waste of money and soldiers lives, but isnt that the case with every war?

TOS.

If "Bush was taking oil for our war expenses" (paraphrased) and failed to do it was that a right ("the public was good with that trade off"???) thing to do or wrong?

If....your point is being used to qualify that trade off as OK then where's the outrage for Barack Hussein's omission of the trade off on his watch?

Or, is this statement of repayment just unfounded bait?