Posted on 10/29/2007 11:31:08 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
“You’re unwilling to actually state your reasons for spending American Blood and Treasure to support an Anti-Christian Iraqi Government run by American-Killing Terrorist thugs.”
*Shrug*...maybe we should just nuke em...
“Do you know why you’re unwilling to do so?”
No...tell me...
“Because you’re ashamed.”
Not so much...I’m actually rather amused...this beats surfing for porn at 4am....if I get horny...the wife wont wake up...
“That’s why you are unwilling to address my direct question (and why you won’t, in your next response). You have no response.”
Your direct question is a strawman arguement....it certainly doesnt sway me to vote for a crazy person....
“And how could you? Your position, by any Christian standard of ethics, is utterly indefensible.”
Uh...yeah....sure...
My official position....as a christian...is to nuke the godless heatens into the hereafter...
But I’m more of a templar kind of christain...
Carter got in mostly because Ford was appointed by Nixon, and he was never elected to the office of V.P. Other folks didn’t like it that he pardoned Nixon.
Carter was a lucky man that year. Based on his merits, I’d like to think he’d never have been elected.
Ummm, fries sound good right about now...
I just wish I was black so I could vote for anyone but Ron. LOL
Maybe we should invade Iraq and get him...
We’re already there; he’s an Elected Member of Parliament (never mind his Death Sentence in absentia for his brutal crimes against America); and you think that we should continue spending American Blood and Treasure to prop up his Government.
Real nice. Real patriotic of you. You must be Proud.
So... go VOTE HILLARY, and BE PROUD.
“Conservatism” like yours, I can do without
“conservatism” like mine.....you never had....
You know, I could point out that Osama actually wanted us to go in to Iraq (part of his "7-point plan" for world domination). But then, you'll just say that we're "engaging him on his own turf" or whatever. No matter what the situation, you can always justify Foreign Interventionism. You'll just change your argument based on your beliefs, facts be damned.
It would never occur to you to just let Shi'ites and Sunnis kill eachother. Never occur to you that we might be better off just keeping our feet out of the snake pit, and letting the vipers kill eachother.
It occurred to Reagan. But somehow, you'll never see the wisdom in that.
Well, if you’re of the Caucasian persuasion, you’ll be joining the 98% of the sane GOP primary voters in saying “no” to Dr. Demento. ;-)
Well, I guess I’ll have to console myself with that thought. LOL
In hindsight we might have been better served if we had elected Ford. Oh well, four years of Carter brought us Reagan so I guess it was worth it.
Unfortunately, things have gone downhill from there. Bush I, Clinton I, Bush II,... Clinton II? I don’t know. That’s a long ways down the hill, perhaps over the edge. I hope we don’t go there but unless we get our act together and stop all this unneccesary bickering we’ll get the opportunity to see what life in free-fall is like. Whatever happens, may the best MAN win!
Okay. Howzabout YOU stop supporting them?
Tell you what: YOU stop advocating American Military and Financial support for the Terrorist Gang of Thugs currently ruling Iraq, and THEN we can talk about Nuking them from Orbit.
Incidentally, one of Ron Paul's closest former staffers has publicly stated that Nuking Mecca -- yes, nuking Mecca -- is the only realistic way to permanently End the 1,400 year Islamic Jihad. And I happen to know that his voice still echoes loudly on Ron Paul's staff; else, why would Ron Paul's national political director have asked me if I was familiar with his writings when I called her up, way back at the beginning of the campaign (I could only say, "Uh, yeah, I've heard of him.... he's only the leading Theonomist in my Denomination, and all!)
So, do be aware of this -- Ron Paul is probably the ONLY Presidential Candidate who has deliberately surrounded himself with Five-Point Calvinist Christians (the "Black Regiment" of the American Revolution) whose historical foreign policy boils down to this: "Either stay out of it.... or else Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
But it doesn't do a lot of bloody good in the meanwhile for you to wrap yourself in the flag, SUPPORT giving US Military and Financial assistance to the latest Gang of American-Murdering Terrorist Thugs, and pretend it's "Patriotism".
Yes you could point out that Laden wanted us in. But then you’d have to admit that in light of his most recent communiqué, he’s acknowledges what a buffoon he actually was to wish for that. That being the case, it’s rather difficult for a sane person to argue that going in was a mistake. Osama is crying in his goat milk, and Ron and you are very upset that this came to pass. And you can’t see this for what it is. Sheesh.
Yes, I guess we should all hang our heads in shame for in effect declaring war on the terrorists after 09/11. While we’re at it, let’s also admit what fools we were for declaring war after Pearl Harbor. Just damn us pinhead foreign interventionists, always looking for a contemptible reason to do the unthinkable. LMAO
As long as Shiites and Sunnis are fighting each other, there is cause to worry about those fights spreading across the region. And when the destabilized region goes poof and oil production dies, I’m sure Ron will have an answer for that too. So on top of us supposedly to be against the WOT, we’re to be hopeful of continued strife in the ME, and ignore the threat to a flow of oil. I guess I’d never quite thought of it that way. Very good. Not!
Not only are we to be upset about a reduction in terrorism, there is cause to be pissed that the supply of energy might be stable. Oh dang.
Reagan did pull our troops home after the barrack bombing. He did not refuse to react to a terrorist attack on our soil that could have easily cost us more than 50 thousand lives.
Your attempt to equate the two is just pathetic.
Agreed. Have a good night.
So now your premise is that killing tens of thousands of terrorists isn’t a good thing. Ooookaaaaay... what’s next on the hit parade?
*whispers*
“Flouridated water.”
I was sorely tempted, but I don’t think I can top that one. LOL Good one.
A Republican Candidate getting 33% of the Black Vote. Anyone think that's a bad idea?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Hehehe. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
I remember a certain Republican Senator from IL that cleaned up the Black vote in certain sections of Chicago. He did it by telling them Jews were keeping them down.
Sometimes, it just isn’t worth the trouble it brings.
Ignoring for a moment the question of whether or not these polls are accurate, you are wrong about there not being enough Black votes to matter.
After the 2000 election Karl Rove spoke often about the 4 million Christians who didn’t turn out to vote. He made a big push to get them out in 2004, including an unprecedented push in Black churches hitting the issues of abortion, gay rights, and gay marriage real heavy in the churches.
The strategy paid off. In 2004 Bush won more than double the number of Black votes in Ohio as he won in 2000. The 14% of the Black vote he won in Ohio gave him the state and the election. Had he lost Ohio, the Florida vote would have been meaningless. We would have President Kerry today.
The election is not won on the popular vote it is won in the Electoral College. In several key states, like Ohio, Democrats can’t win the state without getting 90% or better of the Black vote. Ed Rollins knew that and went after the Black social conservatives in Reagan’s 1984 landslide win. Rove followed that lead in 2004 and saved the election from going the other way.
The Democrat Party leaders wet their pants when they see the Black vote slipping anywhere. Any Republican candidate that can pull more than 10% of the Black vote is an odds on favorite to win the Presidency.
None of this is saying that I’m convinced that Dr. Paul can win that much of the Black vote. However, if he really could pull more than 20% of the Black vote he would walk away with the election.
The Federal Government could easily purchase the entire annual oil exports of Saudi Arabia, and simply give every American free gasoline, for less than what the Iraq War (which concerns a rather small portion of world oil exports) is costing us NOW.
Not that I think that the Federal Government should give us all free gasoline. But it does illustrate just what a hopeless case you have, if you're now appealing to "cost-efficiency" in terms of "Wars to protect the flow of oil". If that's your criteria, this is without question one of the most counter-productive Wars ever fought in human history.
Let the Sunnis and Shi'ites kill eachother. Buy oil from whichever is currently in power. They've got nothing else to do with the stuff but sell it (they certainly can't drink it); and if we're really fortunate, the Turks will move south an put an end to to the whole insanity. There's plenty of evidence that they're already itching to do so.
Then, we can buy oil from the Turks, and the Turks can deal with the recalcitrant Arabs. Where's the problem?
(World War I was a mistake. It should be corrected).
That would only presume he'd hold all of the GOP vote, and you and I both know, ain't gonna happen.
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.