Should an act of expression be a crime?

But you ignore LBJ, the man that actually did knowingly lie about the Gulf of Tonkin and is responsible for the deaths of 10x more than were killed
during the Iraq occupation by terrorists attacks....

Your just obsessed about Bush and Iraq....yet don't ever mention Albright saying that 500,000 Iraqi children killed during the Clinton admin. was 'worth it'.....

Your hypocrisy is unbelievable....

What the FUCK are you talking about?

I was against Vietnam and think it was one of the crimes of the century. I don't start threads on it because it was FIFTY YEARS AGO. Iraq only recently ended, and we're still dealing w/ the fallout from Bush's big mistake.

You incomprehensible liar. How dare you call me a hypocrite.
 
Odd I never hear you whine about the 47,000 killed because of LBJ in Vietnam....or the 500,000 children killed in Iraq when Clinton was CIC....
Albright even got a medal for that....

At least we were meeting our objectives in Iraq until Obama decided to abandon the country so ISIS could be born.

You think it is odd that people tend to discuss current events over old ones? What about Lincoln?
 
wasn't here then......couldn't say.......heard it a lot on the board I was on then......you're certainly as stupid as any of them were......


Cindy Sheehan, the so-called Peace Mom seeking a second meeting with President Bush in connection with the Iraq War death of her son, says terrorists killing Americans are “freedom fighters.”
and her supporters.....
 
#337

Insurgents resisting a foreign military occupier* aren't freedom fighters?

Educate me.

If a foreign invader began to occupy the United States of America for the stated purpose of "regime change", you think I wouldn't buy a gun and go help expel or exterminate them?
And just what do you suppose I'd be fighting for, if not for freedom to retain our Constitutional republic?

That's the way it is for U.S. here.
Why should it be any different for them there? If insurgents aren't freedom fighters, what are they?


* Whatever anyone believed then, we know now the Bush administration's casus belli was bogus. And for the Iraqis that believed that then would have had rational reason to resist the militaristic occupier.
 
One of two things is true.

- Either the Trumpettes are so naïve they believe Trump's vague and glorious pledges: "Make America Great Again" - OR -

- they're so unethical that they know Trump is a liar; and they just don't care.

Which of those two explanations is supposed to be comforting?

Make America great again isn't so vague because it translates into put America first.

None of Trump's critics were right about him before the election so their opinion about how he will perform as president should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.
 
Make America great again isn't so vague because it translates into put America first.

None of Trump's critics were right about him before the election so their opinion about how he will perform as president should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

Those two phrases do not mean the same thing, if he meant, "Put America First" that should have been his slogan. Instead he chose a slogan that suggests America is not great and that there is a time in the past when we were.
 
Make America great again isn't so vague because it translates into put America first.

None of Trump's critics were right about him before the election so their opinion about how he will perform as president should be taken with a hefty grain of salt.

I love it when the liberals say WHAT his term in office will be like; because all the other things that they said he would fail at, he's proven them wrong every time. :good4u:
 
Back
Top