Surge is a Success!!

[John R]

i see. i misread what you wrote.

w/regards to the pic, i googled 'kicking george w bush' it should come up for also.

 

[John R]

Don't you think dogged criticism of Bush and his policies while earning a living from a corporation that has been a MAJOR contributor to and supporter of the Bushes is a wee bit hypocritical. I think asking his opinion on a mutitude of controversial issues is fair game. Sorry Scooter

classic. no i don't. must everyone now march to the tune of thier employer? it must be nice to be able to work for an employer who believes 100% the same way you do. i think asking is fair game, but it still has nothing to do with the surge. maybe another thread?

 

[full time]

Hey John R, that sounds like the argument for the piano player at the brothel. Hey, I had no idea what was going on in the upstairs bedrooms, I just play the piano. So what if someone's employer gives hansomly to a liar and a fraud who starts wars abroad under false pretenses, they just work there (in ignorant bliss, I presume). I suppose we shouldn't expect people who profess strong core liberal beliefs to be true to those beliefs if it might have financial consequence.

 

[Linda]

Yep and despite that up until 12/7/41, the US had an official policy of neutrality and dare I say appeasement towards Hitler. And while Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait, lobbed missles into civilian areas of Israel, gassed Kurds in the north and slaughtered Shia in the south, repeatedly fired anti aircraft at US jets and attempted the assassination of a former US President, while certainly not neutral, the US tolerated and appeased his continued "leadership" in the heart of the middle east, until 9/11. Leaders of both parties for years before had made firey speeches about the threat Saddam posed. Congress, including many democrats, supported invading Iraq. I suspect that much of the gnashing of teeth now is the result of the 24 hour news cycle reporting every shooting, bombing, injury, death, scandal, etc. If the same had been true during WWII, you probably wouldn't be romanticizing about those events either.

http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv

 

[6thGen]

OK, John R, I was right. Based on the fact that you resorted to Hitler, you lose. Use a little more restaint next time.

 

[John R]

OK, John R, I was right. Based on the fact that you resorted to Hitler, you lose. Use a little more restaint next time.

Hitler who? That's your friend GWB dreesed up for the costume ball. Guy's nuttier than a fruitcake.

 

[John R]

Hey John R, that sounds like the argument for the piano player at the brothel. Hey, I had no idea what was going on in the upstairs bedrooms, I just play the piano. So what if someone's employer gives hansomly to a liar and a fraud who starts wars abroad under false pretenses, they just work there (in ignorant bliss, I presume). I suppose we shouldn't expect people who profess strong core liberal beliefs to be true to those beliefs if it might have financial consequence.

so, to take your simplistic argument a step further, someone who works for boeing, or gruman, etc cannot afford to have a liberal view. food, mortgage, and doctors must take a backseat? they work for a company that makes planes that civilians fly in, but the same planes deliver munitions and drop bombs. surely, these companies make huge contributions to certain political parties.

yeah. therefore, how is someone that works for st. joe a warmonger in sheep's clothing?? help me out here. i can't make that jump with you.

 

[full time]

If buying food (and carbon credits) and paying mortgages scrubs clean the liberal conscience, I'm all for it.

 

[John R]

did you lose out on real estate or something? don't earn enough to buy into watercolor? you seem to have quite an axe to grind. didn't like my boeing example either, it seems.

 

[full time]

Look John, I like you. That is why I don't wish to debate this ad nauseum. I would agree with you if we were talking about taxes, health care, affirmative action, etc. Reasonable minds can differ on those issues. But the far left view is that the President is a war criminal. How do you justify touting ties to and profiting from a company that has very public, close personal and financial ties to a "war criminal"? Understand the distinction? But like I said, whatever cleanses the conscience.