Obama's Houston Campaign Office:

[bojack34 2]

Communist Cuba and Che Gueverra. Do we really understand what we will get this Novemeber?

Video

Why should anyone be surprised by this. Go look at the creed of the church that he is a member of. Just insert

the word white in place of black or African American and you would be labeled a racist. extremist

Hey Bojack! You're not holed up somewhere polishing off a twelve pack with Wishbone, are you?

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=382903

First of all I don't drink unless you are talking about a twelve pack of green tea. As for your reference to my previous post I really don't see the relevance. I stand by what I said earlier and I stand by it now. Society has a double standard when it comes to racism. It may not mean much to you but I know I don't want to be part of a church that is biased towards one race or the other. In MLK's I have a dream speech he talked of a country where whites and blacks could worship together. Obama's church does'nt seem to have that same view nor do many other churches across this land including the "all white churches". If we can't worship God

together on earth how do we expect to do it in heaven? My point is this. Obama's church is not the only one that is guilty of this but hes is running for President and he is a member of church with these kind of beliefs so what says he want run the country the same way. He may or may not but I'm not willing to take that chance until he denounces his church's creed. In Christ's love, Bojack34

So you still equate Osama with Obama? "In Christ's love?" That ain't the green tea talking.

This issue has been discussed a few times here already, but what about the UCC Trinity church is anti-white? Whites and blacks do worship their together there. The United Church of Christ is predominately white-- his particular congregation largely serves the African-American community in which it located, but not exclusively.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioaChVw_pUw...c.org/about.htm

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?s...st&p=381632

I agree I "may" have went a little too far in equating Osama with Obama just as David Letterman did the other night. ( Now that was funny!) I guess time will tell. As far as his church creed, I still don't see any mention of reaching out to white people.

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

sounds like a Jesse Jackson church to me.

[Tigermike 3,054]

The politics of hate. The politics of fear. We will get past all of this by ignorning posters like you.

Maybe we should ignore posters like you, who can't spell ignoring.

See that didn't take long at all did it, ObamaBoy?

[RunInRed 16,489]

I will try to restrain myself from having these petty, name-calling fights with you. Instead, I will choose to embrace the politics of hope that Obama preaches - getting past this type of tit-for-tat, Hatfield and McCoy style of politics is what we should all be trying to do. I will man up and attempt to be a better person going forward.

[mattd 3]

The politics of hate. The politics of fear. We will get past all of this by ignorning posters like you.

I don't think that he's doing either of those things in this case. It's a legitimate question: why would an Obama campaign office display the flag of a communist nation with a picture of a murderous thug like Che Guevara on it?

He's doing both of those things. He's nothing if not consistent. He didn't ask a question. He engaged in innuendo in the form of a rhetorical question.

Do we really understand what we will get this Novemeber?

Why, a Che loving communist, of course!!

Based on what evidence? A VOLUNTEER had a flag on her wall before a paid staffer is even on the scene!! He's the Manchurian candidate! What more proof do you want!?

This the typical Republican crap we've come to expect.

Man, you guys are spinning it so hard your probably about to fall over dizzy....it's a simple question...and you have NO IDEA what Obama really thinks about it...just like we don't, but it's probably typical of his followers..not a good sign..it should make you think about your candidate a little more instead of FREAKIN DEFENDING this office..If I was a supporter I'd be dropping letters and emails everyday wanting an answer and getting rid of who ever put that flag up...but hey that's jsut a rational point of view...I know it's carazy

[AFTiger 282]

I will try to restrain myself from having these petty, name-calling fights with you. Instead, I will choose to embrace the politics of hope that Obama preaches - getting past this type of tit-for-tat, Hatfield and McCoy style of politics is what we should all be trying to do. I will man up and attempt to be a better person going forward.

Well let us see:

Obama HOPES he can

1. Destroy the world's finest health system

2. Tax us into prosperity

3. Surrender to Islamofasism

4. Increase college tuition rates through student loans

I'm sold. I am now an Obama voter!

[RunInRed 16,489]

1. Since when does the U.S. have the world's finest health system? Maybe the most expensive but certainly not the finest.

2. Obama supports tax cuts for the middle class and eliminating taxes for seniors making under 50k. He wants to restore the effective tax rate for those making over 250k to the levels they were at in the 90s - hardly a time of economic depression.

3. Surrender to Islamo-fascism? HUH? Weren't you the one in another thread criticizing Obama for wanting to go in and attack al quada/bin laden in Pakistan if we had credible evidence and Pakistan could not/would not act.

4. Increase college tuition rates? Where has he said he would do this? I've heard him talk about a 4k tuition credit in exchange for community service but...

None of your statements make any sense. How about you try to provide some facts if you are going to try to make these blanket assertions.

[AFTiger 282]

1. Since when does the U.S. have the world's finest health system? Maybe the most expensive but certainly not the finest.

2. Obama supports tax cuts for the middle class and eliminating taxes for seniors making under 50k. He wants to restore the effective tax rate for those making over 250k to the levels they were at in the 90s - hardly a time of economic depression.

3. Surrender to Islamo-fascism? HUH? Weren't you the one in another thread criticizing Obama for wanting to go in and attack al quada/bin laden in Pakistan if we had credible evidence and Pakistan could not/would not act.

4. Increase college tuition rates? Where has he said he would do this? I've heard him talk about a 4k tuition credit in exchange for community service but...

None of your statements make any sense. How about you try to provide some facts if you are going to try to make these blanket assertions.

Of course my statements make no sense to you. Your deficient knowledge of history, economis and facts combined with your blind devotion to Obama preclude you from understanding the effects of of HOPES.

1. Since when does the U.S. have the world's finest health system? Maybe the most expensive but certainly not the finest.

The healthcare system in the US is the finest in the world. It produces the most advanced techology and the most effective and newest pharmacueticals. It is available to all of its citizens and not rationed by bureacrats as in other systems. You may think it is expensive but wait until it is not available.

2. Obama supports tax cuts for the middle class and eliminating taxes for seniors making under 50k. He wants to restore the effective tax rate for those making over 250k to the levels they were at in the 90s - hardly a time of economic depression.

We are not in a bad economy now, one which was built on solid returns to consumers and not overpriced dot com stock and false earning reports. In the world of Obamas, the middle class is a real soft definition apt to move according to circumstance and desired outcome. According to the IRS, 97% of all income taxes are paid by the upper 50% of income earners, 86% paid by the upper 25% and the top 1% pays 39% of all income taxes. One question never answered by you guys is how much tax should anybody have to pay?

3. Surrender to Islamo-fascism? HUH? Weren't you the one in another thread criticizing Obama for wanting to go in and attack al quada/bin laden in Pakistan if we had credible evidence and Pakistan could not/would not act.

Never said that. Obama has promised to bring the troops home within nine months regardless of the situation on the ground. Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory. In keeping his promise he will subject Iraq to the invasion and overthrow by iranian backed factions and expose the United States to subsequent 9/11 style attacks.

4. Increase college tuition rates? Where has he said he would do this? I've heard him talk about a 4k tuition credit in exchange for community service but...

Economics dictate that prices will rise with the availablitiy of money. That is the reason that college tuitions have risen faster that the rate of inflation. Rather than lower tuition, colleges are building palacial facilties that have nothing to do with education. Rather than make more money available to outrageous tuition increases, Obama might attack the real problem and pressure colleges to reduce tuition and improve secondary education so that high school graduates are capable of employment with the college degree. Would he have the courage to take on the teachers unions? I don't think so!

Obama is an eloquent speaker without substance. He is a very glib politician who can sell vague concepts to the easily decieved.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Research would debunks all these points...there are a lot of opinions interlaced as well. Philosophical and ideological differences mainly.

You basically accept the health care system as it currenlty is (which is unsustainable), like the current fiscal approach (even though a clear alternative provided amazing success in the recent 90s), and are determined to label all democrats as "cut-and-run" liberals and being soft on defense even though the historical facts don't back that up (and yes, I do think we should leave Iraq - there is no military solution there and we are now involved in their civil war as we attempt to nation build).

There is a reason the Presiden't approval rating has been at 30%. There is a reason we have a ridiculous and still growing national debt. There is a reason the dollar continues to be weak. There is a reason we're facing economic downturn. there is a reason millions don't have and can't afford health care. There is a reason medicare is unsustainable. There is a reason why college is more expensive than ever. There are real problems in this world. There are big problems in this country.

There's a reason so many are attracted to this notion of "change". Ultimately, this election will be about stay-the-course or trying to solve the problems we face. And this is why the Republicans will lose come November.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory.

All the rest of this stuff is largely just the typical perception and selective statistic use that both side employ in. But I'd like to see the justification/source for the above quote. Could you give an outline of Democrats that created this legacy and how they did so?

[AFTiger 282]

Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory.

All the rest of this stuff is largely just the typical perception and selective statistic use that both side employ in. But I'd like to see the justification/source for the above quote. Could you give an outline of Democrats that created this legacy and how they did so?

South Vietnam was able to fight on it own with equipment supplied by us but then abandoned by Democrats who attacked the President instead.

Reagan fought communism in Central America, Afghanistan, and Rusia; Democrats fought Reagan.

Bush fought Islamofaciasm in Afghanistan and Irag; Democrats fought Bush.

Deomcrats would abandon Iraq in the face of victory by us.

[AFTiger 282]

Research would debunks all these points...there are a lot of opinions interlaced as well. Philosophical and ideological differences mainly.

You basically accept the health care system as it currenlty is (which is unsustainable), like the current fiscal approach (even though a clear alternative provided amazing success in the recent 90s), and are determined to label all democrats as "cut-and-run" liberals and being soft on defense even though the historical facts don't back that up (and yes, I do think we should leave Iraq - there is no military solution there and we are now involved in their civil war as we attempt to nation build).

There is a reason the Presiden't approval rating has been at 30%. There is a reason we have a ridiculous and still growing national debt. There is a reason the dollar continues to be weak. There is a reason we're facing economic downturn. there is a reason millions don't have and can't afford health care. There is a reason medicare is unsustainable. There is a reason why college is more expensive than ever. There are real problems in this world. There are big problems in this country.

There's a reason so many are attracted to this notion of "change". Ultimately, this election will be about stay-the-course or trying to solve the problems we face. And this is why the Republicans will lose come November.

You cling to fallacies and left wing propoganda. Change is just that, not necessarily for the good.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory.

All the rest of this stuff is largely just the typical perception and selective statistic use that both side employ in. But I'd like to see the justification/source for the above quote. Could you give an outline of Democrats that created this legacy and how they did so?

South Vietnam was able to fight on it own with equipment supplied by us but then abandoned by Democrats who attacked the President instead.

Nixon (Republican) took us out of Vietnam, not Johnson (Democrat). Kennedy (Democrat) sent us in there in the first place.

Before that, Truman (Dem) sent us into Korea. Eisenhower (Rep) fulfilled a campaign promise to get us out.

Reagan fought communism in Central America, Afghanistan, and Russia; Democrats fought Reagan.

Ok. Though a lot of Democrats supported Reagan in those efforts as well.

Bush fought Islamofaciasm in Afghanistan and Irag; Democrats fought Bush.

Correction. Bush fought Islamofascism in Afghanistan in the form of the Taliban and Al Qaida and Democrats supported him.

Bush launched a war against Iraq that was in his own words "preemptive" when Iraq contained little to no serious elements of Al Qaida because they hated Saddam almost as much as they hated us and he hated them back and based on faulty intelligence and badly miscalculated the locals' reactions to the US "liberators" resulting in a complete and utter mess for most of the last 4+ years until the surge started producing results in recent months. Democrats opposed that.

[RunInRed 16,489]

Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory.

All the rest of this stuff is largely just the typical perception and selective statistic use that both side employ in. But I'd like to see the justification/source for the above quote. Could you give an outline of Democrats that created this legacy and how they did so?

South Vietnam was able to fight on it own with equipment supplied by us but then abandoned by Democrats who attacked the President instead.

Reagan fought communism in Central America, Afghanistan, and Rusia; Democrats fought Reagan.

Bush fought Islamofaciasm in Afghanistan and Irag; Democrats fought Bush.

Deomcrats would abandon Iraq in the face of victory by us.

Vietnam and Iraq will go down together as two of the biggest foreign policy blunders in American history. Also, please define "victory" for us in Iraq. Did Bush not already declare Mission Accomplished? There is no military solution to this war. Our troops can help suppress the violence, but they cannot solve its root causes. And all the troops in the world won't be able to force Shia, Sunni, and Kurd to sit down at a table, resolve their differences, and forge a lasting peace.

And I suppose when Reagan ordered Marines out of Lebanon he was not "cutting and running?"

What Democrat fought Bush in Afghanistan? If anything, Democrats were fighting Bush in losing focus on Afghanistan to divert attention to Iraq.

You are blind-sided by your ideology, which history, facts, and reason do not support.

[CCTAU 3,346]

I have no idea...but I would be willing to bet the minute BO finds out about it, it will be gone and so will those responsible.

The problem I have with these types of posts are that they are done with the intent of branding Obama as embracing people like these when we all know he does not and would not.

I don't think osama Obama is embracing "these" people. I thin you missed the point. The sad part is that "these" people seem to be embracing osama Obama. That in itself should tell the world about what he stands for.

If demons are following your lead, you just might be the debil.

[RunInRed 16,489]

I have no idea...but I would be willing to bet the minute BO finds out about it, it will be gone and so will those responsible.

The problem I have with these types of posts are that they are done with the intent of branding Obama as embracing people like these when we all know he does not and would not.

I don't think osama Obama is embracing "these" people. I thin you missed the point. The sad part is that "these" people seem to be embracing osama Obama. That in itself should tell the world about what he stands for.

If demons are following your lead, you just might be the debil.

Now that is some flawed logic.

[channonc 466]

I have no idea...but I would be willing to bet the minute BO finds out about it, it will be gone and so will those responsible.

The problem I have with these types of posts are that they are done with the intent of branding Obama as embracing people like these when we all know he does not and would not.

I don't think osama Obama is embracing "these" people. I thin you missed the point. The sad part is that "these" people seem to be embracing osama Obama. That in itself should tell the world about what he stands for.

If demons are following your lead, you just might be the debil.

Huh??? Please attach a link for your accusation.

[AFTiger 282]

Demoracts have a legacy of abandonment on the edge of victory.

All the rest of this stuff is largely just the typical perception and selective statistic use that both side employ in. But I'd like to see the justification/source for the above quote. Could you give an outline of Democrats that created this legacy and how they did so?

South Vietnam was able to fight on it own with equipment supplied by us but then abandoned by Democrats who attacked the President instead.

Nixon (Republican) took us out of Vietnam, not Johnson (Democrat). Kennedy (Democrat) sent us in there in the first place.

Before that, Truman (Dem) sent us into Korea. Eisenhower (Rep) fulfilled a campaign promise to get us out.

Reagan fought communism in Central America, Afghanistan, and Russia; Democrats fought Reagan.

Ok. Though a lot of Democrats supported Reagan in those efforts as well.

Bush fought Islamofaciasm in Afghanistan and Irag; Democrats fought Bush.

Correction. Bush fought Islamofascism in Afghanistan in the form of the Taliban and Al Qaida and Democrats supported him.

Bush launched a war against Iraq that was in his own words "preemptive" when Iraq contained little to no serious elements of Al Qaida because they hated Saddam almost as much as they hated us and he hated them back and based on faulty intelligence and badly miscalculated the locals' reactions to the US "liberators" resulting in a complete and utter mess for most of the last 4+ years until the surge started producing results in recent months. Democrats opposed that.

Democrats abandoned South Vietnam and cut off their means of defense.

Truman seriously mishandled the Korean War and got us into a war with Red China. Eisenhower established a Communist free South Korea.

Conservative Democrats supported Regan, not the party.

Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then abandoned Bush. Democrats opposed the surge which is showing the promise of victory.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Democrats abandoned South Vietnam and cut off their means of defense.

Wrong. The war was mismanaged from the get go and continued to be mismanaged by Nixon. He left not because the Democrats abandoned anyone, but because both the Democrat and Republican administrations that ran the war made stupid decisions left and right including failing to press advantages when they had them that would have brought the Vietcong to its knees. You can't blame one political party for Vietnam.

Truman seriously mishandled the Korean War and got us into a war with Red China. Eisenhower established a Communist free South Korea.

Go back to history class. The UN troops had fought back against the N. Koreans and pushed the line back above the 38th parallel in 1950. But then they decided to press forward into North Korea and hopefully unify all of Korea under the government of Syngman Rhee. THAT's what concerned China because they were worried the UN forces would continue pushing its advance into Chinese territory just beyond the Yalu River between N. Korea and China as well. But both the CIA and MacArthur informed Truman that they felt there was little risk the Chinese would actually follow through on their sabre rattling.

After several Chinese offensives that pushed us back, UN forces made advances again beyond the 38th parallel and then stopped, choosing not to keep pressing into NK and then there was a stalemate. Ike wasn't elected until November 1952 and the agreement that gave us a Communist free South Korea didn't come until July 1953.

Again, to try and place the blame on one man or a particular party, much less give credit to Ike for the end result is just ridiculous.

Conservative Democrats supported Regan, not the party.

As I said, a lot of Democrats supported Reagan in these efforts. You painted with the broad brush, I pointed out you reached too far.

Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then abandoned Bush. Democrats opposed the surge which is showing the promise of victory.

Selective memory. First of all, you abandon your erroneous Afghanistan charge without comment. Democrats, as were the rest of us, sold a bill of goods on Iraq and they capitulated to Bush's approval ratings at the time as well as the rhetoric tying agreeing with the Bush Administration on going to war in Iraq with being patriotic and serious about the war on terror.

But most of them also stipulated that they saw this authorization as giving him the use of force as a last resort, which is decidedly not what Bush did. Inspectors were in Iraq at the time and had they been able to do what they were in there to do, would likely have shown us what we found out later after starting this stupid conflict: the WMD weren't there.

Yes, they opposed the surge...on the heels of 3+ years of bumbling and chaos. I'm glad it's working to a large degree, but by then most people's faith in this administration's ability to handle this war properly was gone.

[AFTiger 282]

Democrats abandoned South Vietnam and cut off their means of defense.

Wrong. The war was mismanaged from the get go and continued to be mismanaged by Nixon. He left not because the Democrats abandoned anyone, but because both the Democrat and Republican administrations that ran the war made stupid decisions left and right including failing to press advantages when they had them that would have brought the Vietcong to its knees. You can't blame one political party for Vietnam.

Truman seriously mishandled the Korean War and got us into a war with Red China. Eisenhower established a Communist free South Korea.

Go back to history class. The UN troops had fought back against the N. Koreans and pushed the line back above the 38th parallel in 1950. But then they decided to press forward into North Korea and hopefully unify all of Korea under the government of Syngman Rhee. THAT's what concerned China because they were worried the UN forces would continue pushing its advance into Chinese territory just beyond the Yalu River between N. Korea and China as well. But both the CIA and MacArthur informed Truman that they felt there was little risk the Chinese would actually follow through on their sabre rattling.

After several Chinese offensives that pushed us back, UN forces made advances again beyond the 38th parallel and then stopped, choosing not to keep pressing into NK and then there was a stalemate. Ike wasn't elected until November 1952 and the agreement that gave us a Communist free South Korea didn't come until July 1953.

Again, to try and place the blame on one man or a particular party, much less give credit to Ike for the end result is just ridiculous.

Conservative Democrats supported Regan, not the party.

As I said, a lot of Democrats supported Reagan in these efforts. You painted with the broad brush, I pointed out you reached too far.

Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then abandoned Bush. Democrats opposed the surge which is showing the promise of victory.

Selective memory. First of all, you abandon your erroneous Afghanistan charge without comment. Democrats, as were the rest of us, sold a bill of goods on Iraq and they capitulated to Bush's approval ratings at the time as well as the rhetoric tying agreeing with the Bush Administration on going to war in Iraq with being patriotic and serious about the war on terror.

But most of them also stipulated that they saw this authorization as giving him the use of force as a last resort, which is decidedly not what Bush did. Inspectors were in Iraq at the time and had they been able to do what they were in there to do, would likely have shown us what we found out later after starting this stupid conflict: the WMD weren't there.

Yes, they opposed the surge...on the heels of 3+ years of bumbling and chaos. I'm glad it's working to a large degree, but by then most people's faith in this administration's ability to handle this war properly was gone.

Nothing I have said is incorrect.

[RunInRed 16,489]

LOL. I guess it's time for Titan to give you a break. You can only be neutered so many times in one day.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Democrats abandoned South Vietnam and cut off their means of defense.

Wrong. The war was mismanaged from the get go and continued to be mismanaged by Nixon. He left not because the Democrats abandoned anyone, but because both the Democrat and Republican administrations that ran the war made stupid decisions left and right including failing to press advantages when they had them that would have brought the Vietcong to its knees. You can't blame one political party for Vietnam.

Truman seriously mishandled the Korean War and got us into a war with Red China. Eisenhower established a Communist free South Korea.

Go back to history class. The UN troops had fought back against the N. Koreans and pushed the line back above the 38th parallel in 1950. But then they decided to press forward into North Korea and hopefully unify all of Korea under the government of Syngman Rhee. THAT's what concerned China because they were worried the UN forces would continue pushing its advance into Chinese territory just beyond the Yalu River between N. Korea and China as well. But both the CIA and MacArthur informed Truman that they felt there was little risk the Chinese would actually follow through on their sabre rattling.

After several Chinese offensives that pushed us back, UN forces made advances again beyond the 38th parallel and then stopped, choosing not to keep pressing into NK and then there was a stalemate. Ike wasn't elected until November 1952 and the agreement that gave us a Communist free South Korea didn't come until July 1953.

Again, to try and place the blame on one man or a particular party, much less give credit to Ike for the end result is just ridiculous.

Conservative Democrats supported Regan, not the party.

As I said, a lot of Democrats supported Reagan in these efforts. You painted with the broad brush, I pointed out you reached too far.

Democrats voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq and then abandoned Bush. Democrats opposed the surge which is showing the promise of victory.

Selective memory. First of all, you abandon your erroneous Afghanistan charge without comment. Democrats, as were the rest of us, sold a bill of goods on Iraq and they capitulated to Bush's approval ratings at the time as well as the rhetoric tying agreeing with the Bush Administration on going to war in Iraq with being patriotic and serious about the war on terror.

But most of them also stipulated that they saw this authorization as giving him the use of force as a last resort, which is decidedly not what Bush did. Inspectors were in Iraq at the time and had they been able to do what they were in there to do, would likely have shown us what we found out later after starting this stupid conflict: the WMD weren't there.

Yes, they opposed the surge...on the heels of 3+ years of bumbling and chaos. I'm glad it's working to a large degree, but by then most people's faith in this administration's ability to handle this war properly was gone.

Nothing I have said is incorrect.

The malarky you posted about the Korean war was so wrong it wouldn't have been necessary to have pointed out the rest of the errors.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

LOL. I guess it's time for Titan to give you a break. You can only be neutered so many times in one day.

And the stupid thing about it is, I'm not voting for Obama and have never supported a Democrat for President in my life. I just can't abide seeing such obvious poppycock being passed off in the name of carrying the conservative banner around here.

[AURaptor 1,126]

What do you think it is-- a symbol of unity and racial harmony?

It has nothing to do with race. Its a symbol of unity for the southern states.

Unified treason.

How 'treason' ? The Confederacy wasn't about the overthrow of the Union, but a secession and forming of a NEW nation.

[AFTiger 282]

Titan, you can quible, but I am correct.

Mismanagement of a war seems to be a prefectly good reason to surrender these days.

The Korean War was managed by the Americans and Truman failed to stop at the 38th parrallel. The Chinese reacted to McAuther's desired to invade China and Truman failed to reassure them. Talk about intelligence failures, the Chinese invasion was a complete suprise. All in all, by today's standards' I would rate the Korean War as mismanaged and was the reason for Ike's election.

Democrats voted for the invasion of Iraq. No bill of goods was sold to anyone. Saddam had used WMDs in the past and was set to start up again once the UN was out. Democrats were declaring defeat with the first sand storm. You are relying on the statements of Democrats who were not at all misinformed on their vote., as there statements at the time bear out. Revisions do not alter history only the perception of it.

Democrats cut off funding for South Vietnam, overrode a veto, and essentially made the country defenseless against North Vietnam.

These are facts.

Runninred, I realize you must depend on Titan, for you are far too ill equipped.

[RunInRed 16,489]

I just can't abide seeing such obvious poppycock being passed off in the name of carrying the conservative banner around here.

Unfortunately, happens all the time on this board and we all know who the worst offenders are.