Skip to comments.
Freep This Guy's Anti-American Blog
A Rock in My Shoe ^
| February 20, 2003
| Richard Bradley (unknown)
Posted on 02/20/2003 7:34:10 AM PST by God'sgrrl
This guy attacks Citizen Against Celebrity Pundits and it's supporters with an "artistic flair". more...
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
With a click of the mouse you can respond. :-)
1
posted on
02/20/2003 7:34:11 AM PST
by
God'sgrrl
no password necesarry
2
posted on
02/20/2003 7:39:26 AM PST
by
God'sgrrl
To: God'sgrrl
THis fellow doesn't deserve my time.
3
posted on
02/20/2003 7:39:51 AM PST
by
rs79bm
To: God'sgrrl
What a maroon. I guess 9/11 was a smoke and mirrors tactic by GWB to make us think we were under attack. HE sure is clever to be so dumb. I have been duped again. I'm voting for Carol Moseley-Braun in 2004 and bring some sanity back to this great nation
To: God'sgrrl
No wonder he calls it Ramblings, he never makes a point...just a stream of innuendo.
5
posted on
02/20/2003 7:56:01 AM PST
by
ez
(WHERE'S THE POLLING DATA ON THE ESTRADA FILIBUSTER???)
To: God'sgrrl
Freeped by TRAITORHATER!
6
posted on
02/20/2003 8:02:28 AM PST
by
InShanghai
(Saddam will eat pork!)
To: InShanghai
FREEPERS Rock! The true knights! ;-)
7
posted on
02/20/2003 8:15:15 AM PST
by
God'sgrrl
Comment #8 Removed by Moderator
To: God'sgrrl
FReeped!
"I am fairly certain that President Bush and his administration - as well as most of us who support him, some 66% of the population of the United States - do not want war, but instead want peace... a peace defined by OUR terms.
I am far from sufficiently convinced that Saddam Hussein and the various Islamicists by whom we have been attacked and with whom -whether we wish it or not- we ARE at war are desirous of peace on anyone's terms, but if they are, they desire a peace defined by THEIR terms.
The issue will be decided in favor of the side which has the greater power to assert their terms.
That means, in all likelihood, that the matter will be decided by the United States in favor of the United States, with the trivial side effect of it being better for the general population of the Umma as well.
This is the way all disagreements over "whose peace shall it be?" have ever been decided.
Only a blind fool, ignorant of the lessons of history, would argue otherwise."
9
posted on
02/20/2003 11:51:29 AM PST
by
demosthenes the elder
(i say it again: ALL WEAPONS ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS IF USED FOR THAT PURPOSE!)
To: mhking; JohnHuang2
respectfully submitted for your attention and pinglists
10
posted on
02/20/2003 11:55:42 AM PST
by
demosthenes the elder
(i say it again: ALL WEAPONS ARE ASSAULT WEAPONS IF USED FOR THAT PURPOSE!)
To: God'sgrrl
Richard's (rambling) response on his position (BARF ALERT)...
On the point of "anti-Americanism": disagreeing with the policy of the Bush Administation does not make one anti-American. The Bush Administration is out of step with the American people on this issue; if disagreeing with Bush made one "anti-American" then most of American would be "anti-American". Given that America is a democracy -- and therefore, that the majority position is the position of the Whole -- to call the majority of Americans "anti-American" would be to say that the majority of Americans disagree with themselves. An obvious contradiction. But furthermore, holding a minority position on an issue -- as the Bush Administration does, in the case of this war -- does not make one "anti-American". Calling people "anti-American" is a cheap silencing trick used by cowards and charletans who can't argue their position on the facts.
There are other liberals & anti-Americans posting there also. This guy needs a serious Freeping
BTTT!!!
11
posted on
02/20/2003 6:48:53 PM PST
by
InShanghai
(Saddam will eat pork!)
To: InShanghai
My post back to him:
Where were you people when this was said???
"...we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people. First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens. The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War." -Bill Clinton, Dec. 16, 1998
A soft position has obviously not worked. The "true patriots" are not wishing for any American to loose someone they love. In fact, we're trying to stand up for our beloved country and the ideals that formed this nation to pass on to our children. If we don't, then Islamic Jihadism's invasion of our country will continue. September 11, 2001 was only the beginning according to statements THEY have made, not our government.
All we want is to uphold the true spirit of freedom and democracy so YOU can make your ideas known. Unfortunately, the price to pay is not a few dollars, or even a prize winning YODEL...
A veteran would know what the price is, and for those of us who have volunteered, it was definitely a price we've considered. We're willing to pay that price for the future of this great country.
Cheers!
12
posted on
02/20/2003 7:07:36 PM PST
by
InShanghai
(Saddam will eat pork!)
To: InShanghai
I hate when people say the US is a democracy. It's a republic. He needs some basic government classes.
13
posted on
02/21/2003 12:46:54 AM PST
by
Qwerty
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson