If George Bush had saved millions of white people from cancer ..

christiefan915 said:
I don't know of a single liberal here who supported Vietnam, including signalmankenneth, who served there.
Click to expand...

Thats because the liberals here, are not only liberals, they are also anti-American socialists and are overwhelmingly Democrats....plus, it was before you time,

so to speak.....in 1964 the Vietnam War was supported by all age groups, including those of draft age....as the war dragged on and LBJ made
it more of a debacle, naturally those views went the other way, 20-20 hindsight sight became the norm as the months and years went by and no
one could explain exactly wtf we were trying to accomplish there....and naturally today, its deemed a total failure and a war we obviously lost, no one will admit to having supported it...
 
NOVA said:
Thats because the liberals here, are not only liberals, they are also anti-American socialists and are overwhelmingly Democrats....plus, it was before you time,

so to speak.....in 1964 the Vietnam War was supported by all age groups, including those of draft age....as the war dragged on and LBJ made
it more of a debacle, naturally those views went the other way, 20-20 hindsight sight became the norm as the months and years went by and no
one could explain exactly wtf we were trying to accomplish there....and naturally today, its deemed a total failure and a war we obviously lost, no one will admit to having supported it...
Click to expand...

It's not hindsight. We had no business getting into Vietnam, just as we had no business getting into Iraq.

If "being pro-American" means blindly following leaders to you, you really need a primer on what America is about.
 
blackascoal said:
.. would democrats acknowledge that?

Of course they would .. irrespective of what he did in Iraq.

Yet, George Bush DID save MILLIONS of black and brown people from AIDS, malaria, and other diseases .. and many democrats who claim to care about minorities and under-served people treat that as no big deal .. don't want to talk about it .. don't want anyone else talking about it.

It's just black people .. not like Bush saved real people.
Click to expand...


Reality check...for as the old saying goes, the devil is in the details:


Finally, comprising the 800-pound-gorilla of the HIV=AIDS enterprise are the pharmaceutical companies, with annual HIV drug revenues of at least $8 billion, according to CNNMoney.com.

Yearly sales could reach $15 billion or more, as cash now flows to Africa from the $50 billion dollars (to be spent over five years) in "PEPFAR" funds authorized by Congress and signed into law by George W. Bush on July 30, 2008.

To place that HIV-AIDS drug company pot-of-gold in perspective, fifteen billion dollars would exceed the annual gross domestic products of all but about twenty of the 50-or-so (nation states are hard to count in Africa) African nations. Because the PEPFAR program includes money for other initiatives, like fighting malaria and tuberculosis--actual epidemics in Africa--impoverished nations on the continent have a great incentive to cooperate with AIDS advocates bearing gifts.

Africa, we are told, is being ravaged by a “pandemic” of immune deficiency syndrome attributed to HIV, spread heterosexually among black Africans--an outbreak which never occurred among white heterosexuals in the United States, Canada, Europe and other parts of the western world, where HIV seems to be able to determine if you are gay rather than straight, black-or-brown rather than white, and which can search out intravenous drug users. The “pandemic” claims for HIV=AIDS in Africa are made, even though only a tiny number of Africans have ever had the tests claimed for identifying HIV antibodies. These tests, which few Africans can afford, are supposed to ascertain that casualties of old immune suppressive diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, and immune compromising conditions like malnutrition and polluted drinking water, are, instead, victims of a human immunodeficiency virus.

http://www.garynullblog.com/home/special-report-end-to-aids-nearer-than-we-think-re-appraisin.html
 
Thing1 said:
Well, what can I tell you? Your credibility blows. There is no racism in any of my comments, or in my "failure" to heap praise upon one of the worst Presidents in history.

You're a fool.
Click to expand...

more whitesplaining from the peanut gallery.
 
Thing1 said:
Yeah, me too. And LBJ is a great example; even with some of the social programs that he helped implement, the bad that he did (Vietnam) was so egregious, imo, that it overshadows his good accomplishments almost completely. His legacy is Vietnam, at least to me.
Click to expand...


And in reality, his legacy to Democrats in general and the msm, is "The Great Society" and civil rights....you won't EVER hear either muttering his quote about
having the niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years though.....

Thats his legacy to me.....a typical loud mouth, lying, ballot stuffing, racist, vulgar hypocrite, and life long Democrat.....yet he ranks about 11th in list of Presidents....
go figure.
 
Last edited:
blackascoal said:
I'm not talking about BONO .. I'm talking about people like YOU.

I don't hate democrats .. most of my family are democrats, as is my wife.

But there ain't shit special about being a democrat. You seem to think that it means that Obama and democrats are special and exempt from serious criticism. I don't.

You seem to believe that pointing out the incredible hypocrisy and cowardice of democrats is off-limits. Of course you get to say anything you want about non-democrats .. because you're special.

Fuck that.
Click to expand...
BAC for MVP
 
NOVA said:
Thats because the liberals here, are not only liberals, they are also anti-American socialists and are overwhelmingly Democrats....plus, it was before you time,

so to speak.....in 1964 the Vietnam War was supported by all age groups, including those of draft age....as the war dragged on and LBJ made
it more of a debacle, naturally those views went the other way, 20-20 hindsight sight became the norm as the months and years went by and no
one could explain exactly wtf we were trying to accomplish there....and naturally today, its deemed a total failure and a war we obviously lost, no one will admit to having supported it...
Click to expand...


Anti-American Socialists, lol, crazy talk.
 
Jarod said:
I have one, its simply one with reduced fear. I've found that fear does not serve me well. Its a poor reason for action, and a cause of mediocrity. .
Click to expand...

Well you obviously need to try harder; because it doesn't seem to have worked.
 
Thing1 said:
It's not hindsight. We had no business getting into Vietnam, just as we had no business getting into Iraq.

If "being pro-American" means blindly following leaders to you, you really need a primer on what America is about.
Click to expand...

So we should have ignored an attack on an ally and let Saddam have Kuwait?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So we should have ignored an attack on an ally and let Saddam have Kuwait?
Click to expand...

No, I'll admit that some governments ought to go. But perhaps our invasion of Iraq shouldn't have been a policy shift - or, in other words, we shouldn't have taken Hussein off the list of international criminals.
 
Dungheap said:
A focus on humanity is the point of a thread that (wrongly) outright calls Democrats racists for not caring about Bush's efforts to combat AIDS in Africa? Intersting approach you have there, BAC.
Click to expand...

Look, I think the point that he's correctly making is that Democrats tend to be too absorbed in the mainstream of US politics. They act like Bush II was an unequivocally negative force, while defending politicians sharing his outlook and policies.
 
Libertad! said:
No, I'll admit that some governments ought to go. But perhaps our invasion of Iraq shouldn't have been a policy shift - or, in other words, we shouldn't have taken Hussein off the list of international criminals.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps we should just have removed Saddam, after we kicked the crap out of Iraq's military; when they invaded Kuwait.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Or perhaps we should just have removed Saddam, after we kicked the crap out of Iraq's military; when they invaded Kuwait.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps a bit of negotiation was due. I'm not really familiar with the affair, but I'm always in favor of ousting dictators. Fidel had some good policies, but even he should've gone.

But then again, f the us does it, the country is likely to end up worse.
 
Libertad! said:
Or perhaps a bit of negotiation was due. I'm not really familiar with the affair, but I'm always in favor of ousting dictators. Fidel had some good policies, but even he should've gone.

But then again, f the us does it, the country is likely to end up worse.
Click to expand...

Saddam invaded another country and your solution is to negotiate. :palm:

This is yet another example, in a long line, of you proposing solutions, when you don't even know what is or has happened.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Saddam invaded another country and your solution is to negotiate. :palm:

This is yet another example, in a long line, of you proposing solutions, when you don't even know what is or has happened.
Click to expand...

A long line? I'd love an example or two.

But yeah, we're a world power. Our first solution doesn't need to be an offensive.
 
Libertad! said:
A long line? I'd love an example or two.

But yeah, we're a world power. Our first solution doesn't need to be an offensive.
Click to expand...

Sorry.
I got you mixed up with Steelplate.
He tries to discuss situations that he doesn't have a clue about either.

So your solution is allow someone invade a neighboring country, kill the civilians, loot the cities, and we should negotiate.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top