arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Where is the outcry from the Neo Con Lunatic Fringe. Were A-P-P-E-A-S-I-N-G. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/us....=rss_topstories Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like Obama's good ideas are rubbing off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,722 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Geeesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,351 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Read much? Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BamaGrad03 0 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Read much? Judging from the confusion between "were" and "we are"...I'd say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Read much? Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said. At least they're finally engaging in diplomacy instead of bravado and silly posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This Neo Con Lunatic Fringe dweller is confused. Bush does something that liberals have been wanting him to do, but yet he still gets railed for doing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 This Neo Con Lunatic Fringe dweller is confused. Bush does something that liberals have been wanting him to do, but yet he still gets railed for doing it? No, it's just that when Obama suggested talks with other countries and we "libbies" said it was a good idea, we were accused of being cowards and "appeasers". So now we are talking to N Korea and Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like Obama's good ideas are rubbing off. Sending and envoy is not the same as the President going to meet w/ Iran. It's not the same as Obama saying he'd meet , w/ any thug leader, with out preconditions. You clueless pin heads will spin any damn thing under the sun, distort any fact, and make any ridiculous claim just so as to take a jab at Bush. This actually falls right in line w/ how the Bush Administration has been working for the past 7 yrs. But y'all don't want to give him any credit for that, now do you ? When it's someone you like, you hail them as trying to find an diplomatic solution. When it's Bush, you vilify him and say he's appeasing the terrorist. You folk are just silly wankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like Obama's good ideas are rubbing off. Sending and envoy is not the same as the President going to meet w/ Iran. It's not the same as Obama saying he'd meet , w/ any thug leader, with out preconditions. You clueless pin heads will spin any damn thing under the sun, distort any fact, and make any ridiculous claim just so as to take a jab at Bush. This actually falls right in line w/ how the Bush Administration has been working for the past 7 yrs. But y'all don't want to give him any credit for that, now do you ? When it's someone you like, you hail them as trying to find an diplomatic solution. When it's Bush, you vilify him and say he's appeasing the terrorist. You folk are just silly wankers. Just like the spin McCain does when he said he would send 3 brigades to Afghan. Now he says "oh, they could be NATO brigades' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like Obama's good ideas are rubbing off. Sending and envoy is not the same as the President going to meet w/ Iran. It's not the same as Obama saying he'd meet , w/ any thug leader, with out preconditions. You clueless pin heads will spin any damn thing under the sun, distort any fact, and make any ridiculous claim just so as to take a jab at Bush. This actually falls right in line w/ how the Bush Administration has been working for the past 7 yrs. But y'all don't want to give him any credit for that, now do you ? When it's someone you like, you hail them as trying to find an diplomatic solution. When it's Bush, you vilify him and say he's appeasing the terrorist. You folk are just silly wankers. Just like the spin McCain does when he said he would send 3 brigades to Afghan. Now he says "oh, they could be NATO brigades' That's no where even remotely the same. You just wasted a post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 This Neo Con Lunatic Fringe dweller is confused. Bush does something that liberals have been wanting him to do, but yet he still gets railed for doing it? No, it's just that when Obama suggested talks with other countries and we "libbies" said it was a good idea, we were accused of being cowards and "appeasers". So now we are talking to N Korea and Iran. No, Libs were called cowards and appeasers for wanting to work w/ the enemy in Iraq , vilify and accuse our troops, and blame our President for lying because they didn't want Bush to win the war. Thought he'd get too much praise for that, and then he'd get elected ( which he did ). But the argument about meeting w/ leaders of out law countries is specific to Obama saying HE'd meet, as PRESIDENT, with the leaders of those countries. With OUT pre-conditions. That's a different issue, because it gives those thug leaders status in their own country that they can meet w/ the Presidnet, leader of the Free World, on equal terms. Which telegraphs to the thugs friends and enemies a like that he's on the same level , politically, as the President of the most powerful nation in the world. Your muddying of the waters in bringing up the 'cowards and appeasers' issue is nothing more than typical. An attempt to distort the issue and detract away from what positive work we're trying to get done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,722 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Read much? Burns will also hammer home the point that any direct talks between the United States and Iran will occur only after Iran suspends its enrichment program, McCormick said. At least they're finally engaging in diplomacy instead of bravado and silly posturing. Hey Lib blinded friend. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH OUR POSTURING TOWARDS THESE COUNTRIES! They, NOT US, have been the reasons for it. Good grief. Sometimes you people have no sense of reality and reason. It's MY WAY OR NO WAY..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnaldoabru 11 Posted July 17, 2008 Author Share Posted July 17, 2008 This Neo Con Lunatic Fringe dweller is confused. Bush does something that liberals have been wanting him to do, but yet he still gets railed for doing it? No, it's just that when Obama suggested talks with other countries and we "libbies" said it was a good idea, we were accused of being cowards and "appeasers". So now we are talking to N Korea and Iran. No, Libs were called cowards and appeasers for wanting to work w/ the enemy in Iraq , vilify and accuse our troops, and blame our President for lying because they didn't want Bush to win the war. Thought he'd get too much praise for that, and then he'd get elected ( which he did ). But the argument about meeting w/ leaders of out law countries is specific to Obama saying HE'd meet, as PRESIDENT, with the leaders of those countries. With OUT pre-conditions. That's a different issue, because it gives those thug leaders status in their own country that they can meet w/ the Presidnet, leader of the Free World, on equal terms. Which telegraphs to the thugs friends and enemies a like that he's on the same level , politically, as the President of the most powerful nation in the world. Your muddying of the waters in bringing up the 'cowards and appeasers' issue is nothing more than typical. An attempt to distort the issue and detract away from what positive work we're trying to get done. Who wanted to work with the enemy in Iraq? Bush did LIE We libbies support our troops. We are not the ones who sent them over with out the proper eqiupment so we could fight a war on the cheap We didn't put our wounded in hospitals with mold and unsanitary conditions We did not vote against a new gi bill that would have helped our troops get a college education Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Who wanted to work with the enemy in Iraq? Bush did LIE We libbies support our troops. We are not the ones who sent them over with out the proper eqiupment so we could fight a war on the cheap We didn't put our wounded in hospitals with mold and unsanitary conditions We did not vote against a new gi bill that would have helped our troops get a college education There were the human ahield nutters, for one, and then there was Sean Penn, who wanted to portray life along the Euphrates in Iraq as a virtual garden of eden....... WHERE did Bush lie ??? I'm so damn sick and tired of hearing that stupid Democrat bumper sticker slogan parroted again and again and not ONCE has anyone ever showed where Bush lied. NOT ONE GORRAM TIME! The US military is the best equipped military in the world. I hardly call that sending them over there on " the cheap ". The average soldier today is far better outfitted than those we sent to fight Hitler. The VA hospitals have been historically bad, and that stems from the fact that the GOVERNMENT runs them. The old gi bill helps them get a college education. WTF are you babbling on about this time ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted July 17, 2008 Share Posted July 17, 2008 Looks like Obama's good ideas are rubbing off. Sending and envoy is not the same as the President going to meet w/ Iran. It's not the same as Obama saying he'd meet , w/ any thug leader, with out preconditions. You clueless pin heads will spin any damn thing under the sun, distort any fact, and make any ridiculous claim just so as to take a jab at Bush. This actually falls right in line w/ how the Bush Administration has been working for the past 7 yrs. But y'all don't want to give him any credit for that, now do you ? When it's someone you like, you hail them as trying to find an diplomatic solution. When it's Bush, you vilify him and say he's appeasing the terrorist. You folk are just silly wankers. I'm not taking a jab at him. This is one of the few steps he's taken in the right direction so I applaud it. It's too bad that it's taken so long, but, better late than never. As for Obama's position, you clearly haven't paid attention to what he's said on this subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.