Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
Choices
Not really. This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
Here's the REAL DEAL Folks....
If President George W. Bush was to have treated Terrorism
and Terrorists the way that William Jefferson Blythe Clinton
did...
If President George W. Bush passed up arresting Osama in
Sudan the way that Clinton did (which Billy now admits)...
If President George W. Bush ignored the pleas of Nasty Pelosi,
John Fraud Kerry, Red Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd Poop, to
do something to stop Saddam Hussein the way that Billy Clinton
did, they would demand an impeachment, or worse..
Here's the un-spoken Liberal Plan
If Bush goes after Saddam they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush doesn't go after Saddam they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush has a Whitehouse Dog they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush has a Whitehouse Cat they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush buys a Dodge Truck they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush buys a Porsche they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush owns a Boat, or If Bush gives his Boats to Charity
they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
The Real Deal is that if Bush get's up at 6am tomorrow
they will SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
And if he sleeps in to 8:30 they will call him a low life
lazy son of a bitch who is putting the Country at risk
while he sleeps his life away.
This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
This is more about the 'Religion of Liberalism' and their
'Sacrament of Abortion' than it is about Bush or Iraq.
This is more about the 'Church of Liberalism' (the Supreme
Court), and their Religious Leaders, (the Liberal Justices),
than it is about Bush or Iraq.
and it is about Payback for the Crimes of Bill Clinton and his
Wife their new and only hope..
This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
<SmirkS>
> This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
going by your posts, it's more about stupid vs. smart.
--
TheTruthHurts.
SteveL
wrote:
>Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
Yes. We want them home and safe.
You want them away and dying.
E.E.Dud Keith
"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
> Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers? No!
> Not really. This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
Conservatives care about the troops as long as they're not the ones doing
the fighting.
Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
Krusty
Naah! They chortle and rub their little rat-clawed, vermin hands in glee
whenever we lose troops.
Liberals are the filth of American society. They will be taken to
re-education camps within the next 10-years. It can't come soon enough.
GIT-R-DONE
Krusty
"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
Choices
<dude4234243101_SPAMTHISeddatsh*t...@comcas4t.net> wrote:This is more
Choices
Steve...
jimpgh2002
<stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:20:38 -0700, Choices <CHOICES...@Life.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
>
>Yes. We want them home and safe.
Yeah, just liberals want the soldiers home & safe. Only
liberals; nobody else.
>
>You want them away and dying.
Yes, that's it, you're brilliant. He wants all our soldiers
to die.
You're not at the top of the food chain, are you?
jimpgh2002
<dude4234243101_SPAMTHISeddatsh*t...@comcas4t.net> wrote:
>
>"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
>news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
>> Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers? No!
>> Not really. This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
>
>
>Conservatives care about the troops as long as they're not the ones doing
>the fighting.
>
Conservatives know that sometimes dying is necessary.
Liberals run off to Canada or hide behind their Mommies.
>Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
>
The term "chickenhawk conservative" is an oxymoron.
E.E.Dud Keith
"jimpgh2002" <pmo...@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7irff15k1t9qq8f2p...@4ax.com...
George W. Bush - AWOL
Dick Cheney - Other priorities
Rush Limbaugh - Boil on his ass
Bill O'Rielly - did not serve
All Chickenhawks.
E.E.Dud Keith
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:u00gf1dvvadj8vrif...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:46:49 GMT, jimpgh2002
> <pmo...@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
>>>
>> The term "chickenhawk conservative" is an oxymoron.
>
>
> Hannity and DeLay, and Hastert and all the rest of the GOP leadership?
>
> Are you telling u they're not conservatives? We know they're chicken
> hawks.
>
> BTW when are you enlisting?
Chickenhawk conservatives NEVER enlist.
>
> ----------------
> "Should any political party attempt to abolish
> social security, unemployment insurance, and
> eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would
> not hear of that party again in our political
> history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course,
> that believes you can do these things. Among them
> are [a] few other Texas oil millionaires, and an
> occasional politician or business man from other
> areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
>
> - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 11/8/54
E.E.Dud Keith
"Krusty" <2...@21.com> wrote in message
news:BYRJe.507$3p....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
>
> Naah! They chortle and rub their little rat-clawed, vermin hands in glee
> whenever we lose troops.
>
> Liberals are the filth of American society. They will be taken to
> re-education camps within the next 10-years. It can't come soon enough.
Sounds like a threat asshole.
As your illustrious leader said... 'Bring It On'
E.E.Dud Keith
<retro...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0tvff1pcv67iv7d8a...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 18:33:56 -0500, "Krusty" <2...@21.com> wrote:
>
>>Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
>>
>>Naah! They chortle and rub their little rat-clawed, vermin hands in glee
>>whenever we lose troops.
>
> life and want it to stop. You keep just saying more and more.
>
> What are we getting for it? Nonexistent WMDs? flower petaled parades?
> Iraqi oil to pay for it all?
>
> How do you ask some one to be the last one to die for a mistake?
>>
>>Liberals are the filth of American society. They will be taken to
>>re-education camps within the next 10-years. It can't come soon enough.
>
> anytime soon or are you a hypocrite as well as a cretin?
Both a hypocrite and a cretin.
jimpgh2002
>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:46:49 GMT, jimpgh2002
><pmo...@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
>>>
>> The term "chickenhawk conservative" is an oxymoron.
>
>
>Yeah tell that to Chenney, and Wolfowitz and Perle, and Limbaugh and
>Hannity and DeLay, and Hastert and all the rest of the GOP leadership?
>
>Are you telling u they're not conservatives? We know they're chicken
>hawks.
>
>BTW when are you enlisting?
Well, smartass, I served in Vietnam. Qui Nhon, 1969-1970.
There was some hostility there at the time.
So tell me, where did you serve, Burger King?
Choices
<dude4234243101_SPAMTHISeddatsh*t...@comcas4t.net> wrote:
>Chickenhawk conservatives NEVER enlist.
How many Service Members voted for Bill Clinton
who tried to ruin the Military?
How many Service Members voted for Al Gore
who tried to have their Votes ERASED in Florida?
How many Service Members voted for John Kerry
who Lied about a Generation of Servicemen?
How many Service Members voted for John Kerry
who VOTED against just about every Military spending
Bill he has seen?
I got news for you f*ckhead...
The Military is made up of Conservatives who would
gladly kick the living shit out of you in a hot second.
Your a Punk, a Cocksucker and a Communist...
now go suck a cock somewhere...
t1gercat
of the service are deluded fools doesn't erase the fact that the
Republican leadership are CHICKENHAWKS.
Wexford
t1gercat
Wexford
jimpgh2002
>Now the question is what did we accomplish there? Another war based
>on lies. 50,000 dead. For what? Coca Cola and IBM who now do business
>there?
>
It's easy to be a Monday morning QB.
>I'm sorry I don't see why you guys who were lied to for Vietnam are so
>quick to fall in line behind the next lie.
>
I wasn't in favor of invading Iraq, but I also don't think
Bush lied.
>How long will it take for you guys to wake up? When you're kid goes
>and doesn't come back?
>
Do you advocate just pulling out right now?
E.E.Dud Keith
"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
I'd gladly kick the living shit out of you asshole.
Dana
message news:z5-dnRzUHJH...@novus-tele.net...
Sure.
Keep dreaming.
SteveL
I pitched my answer at the level of the questioner.
(Hint. Check the title of the thread, hypocrite.).
Roneal
We all care. Liberal and Conservative. You Bean Bag!
Get help. Try therapy, medications, knitting, masturbation.....anything.
RO
"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
Chris
<>
<>
123infinity
> Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers? No!
You, sir are the one who does not care. You are the one who is clouding
the issues with your attack on the right of people of having the freedom
of a differing point of view in a free society. It's the likes of you
who rather do character assasination than discussing ideas about issues.
It's the likes of you who rather like to distroy the cohesion of this
nation.
123infinity
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:20:38 -0700, Choices <CHOICES...@Life.org>
>
>
>>Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
>
>
>
>
You don't buy the notion we are a super power? You would rather we run
and hide? You like us to be weak and fight it out on American soil?
123infinity
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 00:20:41 +0100, SteveL
> <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:20:38 -0700, Choices <CHOICES...@Life.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
>>
>>Yes. We want them home and safe.
>>
>>You want them away and dying.
>
>
> Steve...
> This is more about the 'Religion of Liberalism' and their
> 'Sacrament of Abortion' than it is about Bush or Iraq.
Than address the issue! Name calling is very counter productive.
It never changed anyone’s position and you are doing the "Nation" a
disservice. We need all Americans to want at least to respect each other
differences and in the final analyzes we want to be proud of who we are,
a Nation of free speech and respect for all even if we do not agree with
each others points of view. If we stick to the issues we can get there.
Topaz
wrote:
>
>You don't buy the notion we are a super power? You would rather we run
>and hide? You like us to be weak and fight it out on American soil?
Who can say "we" when referring to the USA? Definately the Jews.
Maybe women and minorities. Certainly not a White man.
The Origins of Political Correctness
An Accuracy in Academia Address by Bill Lind
Variations of this speech have been delivered to various AIA
conferences including the 2000 Consevative University at American
University
Where does all this stuff that you've heard about this morning - the
victim feminism, the gay rights movement, the invented statistics, the
rewritten history, the lies, the demands, all the rest of it - where
does it come from? For the first time in our history, Americans have
to be fearful of what they say, of what they write, and of what they
think. They have to be afraid of using the wrong word, a word
denounced as offensive or insensitive, or racist, sexist, or
homophobic.
We have seen other countries, particularly in this century, where this
has been the case. And we have always regarded them with a mixture of
pity, and to be truthful, some amusement, because it has struck us as
so strange that people would allow a situation to develop where they
would be afraid of what words they used. But we now have this
situation in this country. We have it primarily on college campuses,
but it is spreading throughout the whole society. Were does it come
from? What is it?
We call it "Political Correctness." The name originated as something
of a joke, literally in a comic strip, and we tend still to think of
it as only half-serious. In fact, it's deadly serious. It is the great
disease of our century, the disease that has left tens of millions of
people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, indeed around the world.
It is the disease of ideology. PC is not funny. PC is deadly serious.
If we look at it analytically, if we look at it historically, we
quickly find out exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural
Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms.
It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and
the peace movement, but back to World War I. If we compare the basic
tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism the parallels
are very obvious.
First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian
nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than
on college campuses, many of which at this point are small ivy covered
North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross
any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-
rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the
other sainted "victims" groups that PC revolves around, quickly find
themselves in judicial trouble. Within the small legal system of the
college, they face formal charges - some star-chamber proceeding - and
punishment. That is a little look into the future that Political
Correctness intends for the nation as a whole.
Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an
ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not
an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this
philosophy certain things must be true - such as the whole of the
history of our culture is the history of the oppression of women.
Since reality contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must
become forbidden to acknowledge the reality of our history. People
must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant
to live a lie, they naturally use their ears and eyes to look out and
say, "Wait a minute. This isn't true. I can see it isn't true," the
power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie. That
is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.
Second, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic
Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism
says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of
production. Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all
history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of
race, sex, etc., have power over which other groups. Nothing else
matters. All literature, indeed, is about that. Everything in the past
is about that one thing.
Third, just as in classical economic Marxism certain groups, i.e.
workers and peasants, are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the
bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil. In the cultural Marxism of
Political Correctness certain groups are good - feminist women, (only
feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks,
Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be "victims,"
and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do.
Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil,
thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic
Marxism.
Fourth, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation. When
the classical Marxists, the communists, took over a country like
Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, they took away their
property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university
campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions.
When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance
to a college in favor of a black or Hispanic who isn't as well
qualified, the white student is expropriated. And indeed, affirmative
action, in our whole society today, is a system of expropriation.
White owned companies don't get a contract because the contract is
reserved for a company owned by, say, Hispanics or women. So
expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism....
In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank is established that takes on the role
of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates
Political Correctness as we know it today, and essentially it has
created the basis for it by the end of the 1930s. This comes about
because the very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by
the name of Felix Weil has become a Marxist and has lots of money to
spend. He is disturbed by the divisions among the Marxists, so he
sponsors something called the First Marxist Work Week, where he brings
Lukacs and many of the key German thinkers together for a week,
working on the differences of Marxism.
And he says, "What we need is a think-tank." Washington is full of
think tanks and we think of them as very modern. In fact they go back
quite a ways. He endows an institute, associated with Frankfurt
University, established in 1923, that was originally supposed to be
known as the Institute for Marxism. But the people behind it decided
at the beginning that it was not to their advantage to be openly
identified as Marxist. The last thing Political Correctness wants is
for people to figure out it's a form of Marxism. So instead they
decide to name it the Institute for Social Research.
Weil is very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay
the author of a principle book on the Frankfurt School, as the
Institute for Social Research soon becomes known informally, and he
said, "I wanted the institute to become known, perhaps famous, due to
its contributions to Marxism." Well, he was successful. The first
director of the Institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist,
concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, "by clearly
stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific
methodology." Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the
Institute, and that never changed...
The stuff we've been hearing about this morning - the radical
feminism, the women's studies departments, the gay studies
departments, the black studies departments - all these things are
branches of Critical Theory. What the Frankfurt School essentially
does is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s to create this theory
called Critical Theory. The term is ingenious because you're tempted
to ask, "What is the theory?" The theory is to criticize. The theory
is that the way to bring down Western culture and the capitalist order
is not to lay down an alternative. They explicitly refuse to do that.
They say it can't be done, that we can't imagine what a free society
would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we're
living under repression - the repression of a capitalistic economic
order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the
conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression - we
can't even imagine it. What Critical Theory is about is simply
criticizing. It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in
every possible way, designed to bring the current order down. And, of
course, when we hear from the feminists that the whole of society is
just out to get women and so on, that kind of criticism is a
derivative of Critical Theory. It is all coming from the 1930s, not
the 1960s.
Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno,
and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Fromm and
Marcuse introduce an element which is central to Political
Correctness, and that's the sexual element. And particularly Marcuse,
who in his own writings calls for a society of "polymorphous
perversity," that is his definition of the future of the world that
they want to create. Marcuse in particular by the 1930s is writing
some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this
runs through the whole Institute. So do most of the themes we see in
Political Correctness, again in the early 30s. In Fromm's view,
masculinity and femininity were not reflections of `essential' sexual
differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead
from differences in life functions, which were in part socially
determined." Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct...
How does all of this stuff flood in here? How does it flood into our
universities, and indeed into our lives today? The members of the
Frankfurt School are Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933
the Nazis came to power in Germany, and not surprisingly they shut
down the Institute for Social Research. And its members fled. They
fled to New York City, and the Institute was reestablished there in
1933 with help from Columbia University. And the members of the
Institute, gradually through the 1930s, though many of them remained
writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German
society, destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to
Critical Theory directed toward American society. There is another
very important transition when the war comes. Some of them go to work
for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure
in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including
Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.
These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too
much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the
student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by
resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War. But the student rebels
needed theory of some sort. They couldn't just get out there and say,
"Hell no we won't go," they had to have some theoretical explanation
behind it. Very few of them were interested in wading through Das
Kapital. Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the
radicals of the 60s were not deep. Fortunately for them, and
unfortunately for our country today, and not just in the university,
Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School
relocated back to Frankfurt after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in
Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there
- when the student rebels come into Adorno's classroom, he calls the
police and has them arrested - Herbert Marcuse, who remained here, saw
the 60s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity
to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the
New Left in the United States.
One of Marcuse's books was the key book. It virtually became the bible
of the SDS and the student rebels of the 60s. That book was Eros and
Civilization. Marcuse argues that under a capitalistic order (he
downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, A
Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist),
repression is the essence of that order and that gives us the person
Freud describes - the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses,
because his sexual instincts are repressed. We can envision a future,
if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we
liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of
"polymorphous perversity," in which you can "do you own thing." And by
the way, in that world there will no longer be work, only play. What a
wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-60s! They're students,
they're baby-boomers, and they've grown up never having to worry about
anything except eventually having to get a job. And here is a guy
writing in a way they can easily follow. He doesn't require them to
read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to
hear which is essentially, "Do your own thing," "If it feels good do
it," and "You never have to go to work." By the way, Marcuse is also
the man who creates the phrase, "Make love, not war." Coming back to
the situation people face on campus, Marcuse defines "liberating
tolerance" as intolerance for anything coming from the Right and
tolerance for anything coming from the Left. Marcuse joined the
Frankfurt School, in 1932 (if I remember right). So, all of this goes
back to the 1930s.
In conclusion, America today is in the throes of the greatest and
direst transformation in its history. We are becoming an ideological
state, a country with an official state ideology enforced by the power
of the state. In "hate crimes" we now have people serving jail
sentences for political thoughts. And the Congress is now moving to
expand that category ever further. Affirmative action is part of it.
The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness on
campus is part of it. It's exactly what we have seen happen in Russia,
in Germany, in Italy, in China, and now it's coming here. And we don't
recognize it because we call it Political Correctness and laugh it
off. My message today is that it's not funny, it's here, it's growing
and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy, everything
that we have ever defined as our freedom and our culture.
<http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-PC-Origins-Tony.htm>
www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com
123infinity
It would be the height of irresponsibility to cut and run at this point.
What kind of world does he think we live in. That magic kingdom only
exist in the Disney Corporation
GREM...@webtv.net
Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers?
CHOICES...@Life.org (Choices)
Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers? No! Not really. This is
all about Liberal vs. Conservative
If President George W. Bush was to have treated Terrorism and Terrorists
would be ?
If President George W. Bush passed up arresting Osama in Sudan the way
hasn't caught him yet and has missed a few chances too.
If President George W. Bush ignored the pleas of Nasty Pelosi, John
Fraud Kerry, Red Ted Kennedy, and Robert Byrd Poop, to do something to
stop Saddam Hussein the way that Billy Clinton did, they would demand an
Here's the un-spoken Liberal Plan
If Bush goes after Saddam they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder! If Bush
doesn't go after Saddam they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
only for our secrate decoder rings
If Bush has a Whitehouse Dog they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder! If Bush
is getting boring
If Bush buys a Dodge Truck they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder! If Bush
buys a Porsche they SCREAM Bloody F*cking Murder!
If Bush owns a Boat, or If Bush gives his Boats to Charity they SCREAM
The Real Deal is that if Bush get's up at 6am tomorrow they will SCREAM
his sleep but so far it hasn't worked
And if he sleeps in to 8:30 they will call him a low life lazy son of a
bitch who is putting the Country at risk while he sleeps his life
bitch !
and it is him saying we are putting the country at risk by having
moms out protesting his cowardly ass
This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
sure i wanted bush out of Iraq !.... and that i don't give a shit one
way or another about abortion.... by the way since when was it a
sacrament ?
This is more about the 'Church of Liberalism' (the Supreme Court), and
their Religious Leaders, (the Liberal Justices), than it is about Bush
sucks
and it is about Payback for the Crimes of Bill Clinton and his Wife
their new and only hope..
one who is paying bill and hilary back for what crimes ?.... and i
don't want hilary for pres at this point i am not sure if hilary wants
hilary for president
you know that wasn't even fun !
dude you suck ! and have lame ideas
don't make much sense either
Cheeks
How many little right wing zero motherfuckers like YOU
desperately need to have their asses kicked?
I've got news for you, fuckhead, the Noble Republican dickheads
are no friends of the military. Simply, you're another
goddam LIAR, you little punk.
Now, go suck on Limbaugh's ass boil, you pathetic little
asshole.
--
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the Internet become more few?
How many hands have I shacked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope, where
our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
omare...@aol.com
SteveL wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 16:20:38 -0700, Choices <CHOICES...@Life.org>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> You want them away and dying.
Nice try. You want them dying because you think it furthers your
political goals. Better luck lying next time.
omare...@aol.com
<SmirkS> wrote:
> Choices posted:
>
> > This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
>
It must be horrible for you how the "smart" ones have been politically
destroyed over and over and over again. Continue crying.
>
>
>
>
> --
> TheTruthHurts.
omare...@aol.com
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:53:04 -0500, 123infinity <ajv...@cableone.net>
> wrote:
>
Sure it does. Try not to cry, liar.
> And the notion we are fighting them "there" has been proven fallacious
> after London, Spain, Egypt, Turkey , Bali and the rest.
Yes, limiting the terrorist attacks has been a great victory. Except to
the left.
>
> You know just because one has power doesn't mean one has to throw it
> around like a bull in a China shop. Showing some brain power and
> creativity would be far better than this stupid "I have a hammer - so
> every problem is a nail" approach.
omare...@aol.com
E.E.Dud Keith wrote:
> "Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
> news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
> > Not really. This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
>
>
> Conservatives care about the troops as long as they're not the ones doing
> the fighting.
75% of the military is Republican. You were saying?
>
> Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
I'd rather fuck the liberal cowards who want others fighting the wars.
Try not to cry, traitor.
omare...@aol.com
retro...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 23:46:49 GMT, jimpgh2002
> <pmo...@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
> >>
> > The term "chickenhawk conservative" is an oxymoron.
>
>
> Yeah tell that to Chenney, and Wolfowitz and Perle, and Limbaugh and
> Hannity and DeLay, and Hastert and all the rest of the GOP leadership?
That makes sense. Are generals chickenhawks because they direct the
action instead of fighting on the front lines? Try making sense next
time.
>
> Are you telling u they're not conservatives? We know they're chicken
> hawks.
>
> BTW when are you enlisting?
When are you? Ha ha, just kidding, like that would ever happen.
omare...@aol.com
So when are you heading out to the recruiting offices, coward?
>
> Wexford
SteveL
Speak for yourself.
Swami you ain't.
omare...@aol.com
E.E.Dud Keith wrote:
> "jimpgh2002" <pmo...@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7irff15k1t9qq8f2p...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 16:23:37 -0700, "E.E.Dud Keith"
> > <dude4234243101_SPAMTHISeddatsh*t...@comcas4t.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Choices" <CHOICES...@Life.org> wrote in message
> >>news:72pff1tmp30thlt3u...@4ax.com...
> >>> Do the Liberals really care about our Soldiers? No!
> >>> Not really. This is all about Liberal vs. Conservative
> >>
> >>
> >>Conservatives care about the troops as long as they're not the ones doing
> >>the fighting.
> >>
> > Liberals run off to Canada or hide behind their Mommies.
> >
> >>Fuck all chickenhawk conservatives.
> >>
> > The term "chickenhawk conservative" is an oxymoron.
>
>
> Dick Cheney - Other priorities
> Rush Limbaugh - Boil on his ass
> Bill O'Rielly - did not serve
>
>
> All Chickenhawks.
Yeah, why couldn't they be more like Clinton ... wait a minute!