I wonder when they’re going to pull out. I give it two years, tops.
I wonder if we’ll call the British a bunch of pussies too.
:rolleyes:
Ha ha ha I’ll shake my ass for the sweeping win for us Republicans. 
I also laugh at the liberals
- who think appeasing the terroists will work.
- who hate the awful AWFUL loss of civil rights in the past four years.
- who look down on the majority of R voters and call them stupid and bigoted.
- who think socialism would work if we would just extend it to everyone.
- who think economically and militarily weak Europe is superior to America.
- who think the gay marriage amendments failure is going to lead to a gay holocaust
- who believe the lies and fear mongering of the left.
- who think “moral issues” is a CODEWORD for anti-gay bigotry. (SORE LOSERS!!!)
- who think the economy is the worst since the Great Depression.
- who think “our allies” (France) had a moral reason to support Saddam.
- who think the UN is more often decent and right than the United States.
- who don’t understand that activist judges are not in keeping with democracy.
- who think Roe vs Wade is going to be overturned.
- who think Social Security is going last forever in it’s current form.
Do you also laugh at the British and European soldiers who have died fighting Bush’s war in Iraq??
When does ‘staying the course and not backing down,’ especially over, I’ll just say faulty information so as not to be accusatory, a bad idea then? I mean, wasn’t that the mantra of most of America about Vietnam. Was that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place, but since we made a mistake, that we needed to get the hell out?
When should one instead ‘cut their losses’ when a mistake (questionable though it may seem to some) has been made and it’s costing lives?
I see this philosophy everywhere, that Bush is correct in being ‘firm’ and ‘standing his ground.’ The whole antithesis of Kerry’s supposed ‘flip-flopping’. But why is that cherished as a noble characteristic if one is wrong? I’m not going to get into the long debate on his approach/reasons specifically, I’m just curious in a general sense.
As an example, my mother does this, much to the consternation of those close to her and the remainder think she’s insane. Much like Fonzie with his inability to say “I’m soooorr… I was wroooo…”, this comes across as being more defiantly willful and in denial than what it’s usually painted as.
I keep saying this over and over, but I just don’t get it. So, do y’all think a break from the boards then is in order? Have I lost it or do I seem still pretty level-headed? That is, if anyone even knows who I am and I was previously perceived as that in the first place.
::: bangs head on desk :::
HELP! I need light shed please.
Probably no more than laughing at the American soldiers that died liberating Europe.
Twice.
Nobody wants to see soldiers die. There are other things happening though. Now let’s get shit done in Iraq as fast as possible so we can leave.
You shaking yer ass at us 'cause that’s what you think with? Lets review a few of your gems of wisdom, shall we?
“…who think appeasing the terroists will work…”
Who said this? What liberal said “Hey, let’s appease the terrorists!” No, I think we said something like “When your attacked by Germany, you don’t respond by invading Guatemala.” Get it now?
“… who look down on the majority of R voters and call them stupid and bigoted…”
Doubt it. Most are pretty intelligent. But it seems that the bump that put them over the top comes from people who think the most pressing issue in the world is two guys kissing each other. Is that stupid? Well, yeah.
“…who think the gay marriage amendments failure is going to lead to a gay holocaust…”
Huh? Wha? Did you word this like you meant to? You think the Gay Marriage Amendment will fail? And that will lead to brutal discrimination against gays in reprisal? Most of what your saying doesn’t make much sense, but this makes no sense. Revise and reprise.
“…who believe the lies and fear mongering of the left…”
“Vast stockpiles” “urgent threat”. Those lies?
“…who think “our allies” (France) had a moral reason to support Saddam…”
They didn’t “support Saddam”. They just didn’t march in lockstep with us.
“…who think the UN is more often decent and right than the United States…”
Oftimes? No. Sometimes? Yes. In this instance, most definitely. I think we should listen when they’re right.
“…who think Roe vs Wade is going to be overturned…”
I very much think that will happen. I hope you’re right, and I’m wrong. There will be some states where you can get a safe, hygenic abortion. Assuming you can afford it. If you can’t, tough noogies, have the baby you can’t afford or play septicemia roulette. Compassion.
“…who think Social Security is going last forever in it’s current form…”
Nothing lasts forever. Not even victory. Not even gloating. Goes around, comes around. But the Stockbrokers Full Employment Act is not any kind of answer.
Nope. All of your above responses are wrong. That’s what makes you a Democrat and me a Republican. We’ll have to wait and see, but Democrat gloom, doom, and general wussiness proved to be wrong during the Cold War and Carter’s Depression… so I feel it will continue to be wrong, wrong, wrong.
I’m really happy that the Baby-Boomers have matured and chose to return the grown-ups to office. Childish liberals should stick to being party animals and college professors where their lifestyles don’t affect national policy.
_
_
Who was it that said consistency means remaining as wrong or ignorant tomorrow as you are today? I’m sure it was somebody famous.
I do know that RW Emerson said, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”
What did 'lucy say that was “wrong,” as in “factually incorrect?” Be specific. I’m curious.
oh… and how was BLAIR bribed into going along with it? His Halliburton buddies?
Nope. Every death in war is a tragedy. However, ask a liberal if they think it is better if an Iraqi “rebel” gets killed in a firefight, or if it’s better that the Brit/Yank soldier gets killed. Hmmmm???
What American’s find bad about Europe is their high unemployment, anemic economy, 35-hour workweek, cushy unemployment, puffed up sense of morality when doing jack SHIT when troubles happen in the world… EVEN IN EUROPE! (See Kosovo War and Ethnic Cleansing.)
Yep. The US should be more like Europe and be more open-minded to BRIBES from oil-rich dictators!
_
_
Well, that certainly settles that! Do you think your arguments make up with succinctness what they lack in substance?
Not really. I’m way left of most Democrats. My grandfather was way left of most Democrats when he pushed for the eight-hour day, racial equality, those sort of wild eyed and radical ideas. Eventually, we won. Eventually, we will.
You wish. Have yourself a good gloat. We ain’t dead, and we ain’t leaving, and 3% ain’t no mandate.
OK, I was willing to fight clean up to this point. If you are willing to apologize for suggesting that liberals prefer our soldiers to die rather than Iraqis, I’m willing to accept such an apology.
Failing that, you are slime.
Wrong?
You just listed a bunch of “you think this…” and he said “actually I don’t think this…”
What the fuck does that have to do with being wrong? He clarified his positions. If anyone is wrong, it’s you. Your view of his positions was wrong.
Btw, this “we want to appease the terrorists” is completely off the mark. We can agree or disagree on a million things, but as long as you hold that impression, you are misguided. I want them dead just as much as you. The only difference is I think we need to be careful how we do it. We need to be conscious of our actions, and make sure we don’t create terrorists faster then we eliminate them.
Why would we think that either one was “better?”
I will say that those who are being illegally invaded are justified in fighting back.
Let’s leave aside your moronic, simplistic, ugly-ass American slurs against Europe. What the fuck does any of that have to do with whether or not they were obliged to follow is into an illegal, immoral war or to give their lives and their money for Halliburton?
Thank you for the quotes Susan. I’m not sure who coined the first one, but they are both wonderful. I especially like the use of “hobgoblin” (reminds me of Christina Rossetti!), so that might just find its way onto a signature for my email. If all else fails though, I’m sure I’ll be bashed with opposite political beliefs soon and then I’ll be able to trot that out over turkey at Thanksgiving.
You’re a lifesaver. 
Nope, call me what you will, but I have personal anecdotal evidence from a liberal who feels that way. Of course it’s unfair to generalize from a small group, but that thinking is far more prevalent on the left.
bbs
_
_
Oh, you have personal anecdotal evidence! Well, why didn’t you say so! That’s pretty much the gold standard around here. So…you know an asshole that you characterize as a liberal. Well, that certainly settles that! Heck, sure wish I could come up with an example of a conservative who makes vile and vicious allegations about his political opponents! But, shit, can’t think of a single one! Hmmm, wait a tick…who do you think Jack Chick voted for?
Gosh, argumentation is so much easier when bald assertions have the same weight as facts and rational argument.
Bolding mine
<head explodes>
Be strong. Our friend hasn’t coughed up the price of admission yet. Less than 30 days to go …
You know, you’re not going to win any street cred around here with bumper sticker assertions and stupid generalizations. A few more posts like the above and you’re just going to be ignored. Simple name-calling with no sincere attempt or intention to engage in a dialogue is considered to be douchebag behaviour around here. This isn’t the Freeper board.
{b]'lucy** has already wasted more time on you than you deserve. He thought for a moment that you were an honest opponent but it turns out you’re just one of those cardboard cut out villains. Your gun is painted on and there’s nothing there to fight with. When he stops paying attention to you, don’t imagine that you’ve won, he’s just more interested in dueling with someone who can fight back.