- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 156,720
- Reaction score
- 53,497
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Funny how JFK, a Dem, sent troops into Nam, then Johnson, another Dem, escalted the war like no tomorrow with not much from the press - not until Nixon inherited their mess was the war and Nixon's part pounded in the press.
Oh, and let's not forget that the Dems got us into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and that was all good until Nixon inherited Vietnam.
The Germans didn't hit our mainland, yet it was OK for the Dem president to send U.S. troops - and our losses were massive.
The Koreans didn't hit our mainland, yet it was OK for the Dem president to send our troops - and the lossses were great.
The Vietnamese did not hit our mainland, yet a Dem president sent our troops - and the losses were great.
Our biggest city was hit on 9/11, Bush took it to them, and out came the whining, hypocrital assholes. Bush went after the the ones who hit our mainland - and the losses are nothing compared to the losses under Dem presidents.
We lost tens of thousand on given days with the Dem's wars - thousand in individual battles, let alone throughout the wars - Bush's taking it to them for hitting us here resulted in excellent results with minimal losses.
It is evident that liberal loons are the most backward, asshole people on the planet.
So, you are saying that the US should not have fought in WWI, WWII, in Korea or in Vietnam. Is that correct?
No, it's not correct. I wrote that the liberal loons are hypocrital assholes, as well as some other things, but nowhere did I write that.
Oh, and let's not forget that the Dems got us into WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and that was all good until Nixon inherited Vietnam.
I think that Nixon was a terrorist. He tried to poison his own people with paraquat.
Ayers lived in the era of the Kent State Massacre and Nixon who would have wound up in prison if not pardoned by Gerald [bite the bullet] Ford. When you live in an era of tyrants it makes some people get really pissed off.
I am sorry but I would have to educate you before I explain because you can not understand my point.
You assume that you know everybody who is a decent human and it's a fact just because you say so.
I think that Nixon was a terrorist. He tried to poison his own people with paraquat.
Ayers lived in the era of the Kent State Massacre and Nixon who would have wound up in prison if not pardoned by Gerald [bite the bullet] Ford. When you live in an era of tyrants it makes some people get really pissed off.
You think you have what it takes to educate Right, after this crap you just spewed? :roll:
That's why I refer to the Civil Rights Industry vice the Civil Rights Movement. Liberals, Democrats, Leftists, etc. are making millions, not only in dollars, but in political capital off the Black community in America.
Yes, that was the point of my post. Damn you're good.
No ****ing clue.
Which obviously excuses acts of terrorism. I mean, ****, Osama was living in an even worse era in Afghanistan, so we can't blame him for 9/11 either. Great argument.
This ought to clear things up....
YouTube- Jive talkin subtitles-Airplane
More coded racism.:roll:
Hmmm... so when you said this:
You meant that you were OK with all of that, correct?
And btw, stop the foolish partisan hack baiting.
Charles, Reid's statement was clear on what he said. It was not said in a mean spirited manner. I think the senator's age had a lot to do with his rhetoric.
Obama even defended him after it occurred.
I do believe that the Obama haters are barking up the wrong tree.
In fact, rhetoric aside, it was true, I believe.
Charles, Reid's statement was clear on what he said. It was not said in a mean spirited manner. I think the senator's age had a lot to do with his rhetoric.
Obama even defended him after it occurred.
I do believe that the Obama haters are barking up the wrong tree.
In fact, rhetoric aside, it was true, I believe.
I did not write that I was OK with it or not OK with it - please stop reading into it for what is not there.
"foolish partisan hack baiting."?
I am just stating facts - the Dems and liberals screamed about Bush sending in troops yet it was the Dems who sent many, many troops in to die in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam - they are OK with that but not with Bush sending in troops to take it to them after they hit our mainland for the first time in history - and Bush executed it all with a minimal amount of loss compared to the Dems who lost thousands in single battles, and who knows what when added up.
In WWII alone we lost half a million and it is said that somewhere between 50-70 million lives were lost - that's not counting WWI, Korea and Vietnam.
It's just a friendly reminder - sorry if it bothers you.
So, I asked you if you were OK with the US fighting those wars. Are you?
And yes, "foolish partisan hack baiting". Stop doing it.
Funny how JFK, a Dem, sent troops into Nam, then Johnson, another Dem, escalted the war like no tomorrow with not much from the press - not until Nixon inherited their mess was the war and Nixon's part pounded in the press.
It's quite obvious from just the first paragraph that you have no idea at all what you're talking about. If you're too young to remember the Johnson years, you could at least have paid attention in history class.
Let me refresh your memory a little bit:
Anti war protesters were staging demonstrations daily during the Johnson years, chanting things like, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and carrying signs, staging sit ins, marches, you name it. In 1968, Johnson had had enough, and did not run. If there is another example of a sitting president not running for a second term, it must be one from a history class I skipped, just as you seem to have skipped the ones dealing with the years 1963-68.
As for the rest of your partisan nonsense, I'll leave that for another time. This post is already long enough.
LOL - I fought in Vietnam - I did 3 tours - those protesters were liberal loons spurred on by our enemy - if you bothered to read what I wrote you would have read that I was talking about how the press played in the various wars - so don't go patting yourself on the back there too quickly.
Can everyone agree that Reid was being racist when he said this about Obama, and the Republicans are justified in calling the Democrats out for a double standard? But, the GOP is stretching it when they call for Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader.
The press did not ignore the war protesters during the Johnson administration, then begin to cover them when a Republican was elected. That's nonsense. The protesters may have been "liberal loons" in your estimation, but there were a lot of them, and they were well covered in the media. The party of the president in power at the time had absolutely nothing to do with the media attention, or anything else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?