NH Union Leader Endorses Gingrich

[JoeB131]

Will you ever learn to stop evading the point.

Make it simple for you. Obama put America on the side of the Islamists and against the traditional rulers of those countries. Some of these guys have been our allies, some of them, like Khadafy, just people we've learned to live with.

Now we have the Islamists in charge. The people who really think they are going to get 76 virgins for blowing up infidels...

And that's the people he sided with and in some cases, committed our military to helping.

It will bite us in the ass within the decade.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Within the decade? Ooooooh! Better call Keifer Sutherland.

 

[JoeB131]

Yawn.... now you are getting boring.

Sad, really. Sometimes you show sparks of insight, but usually, you are just another sad liberal troll on a conservative board.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You think you are someone who can judge "sparks of insight" in others? You are a fucking looney-tune bigot. You make claims you cannot even begin to support and spend HOURS defending them rather than supporting them.

I decided to make fun of you today, instead of trying to talk sense into you. It has more to do with my mood than anything else. I might feel differently tomorrow. But, either way, you'll still be a dummy bigot.

 

[JoeB131]

You think you are someone who can judge "sparks of insight" in others? You are a fucking looney-tune bigot. You make claims you cannot even begin to support and spend HOURS defending them rather than supporting them.

I decided to make fun of you today, instead of trying to talk sense into you. It has more to do with my mood than anything else. I might feel differently tomorrow. But, either way, you'll still be a dummy bigot.

OOooh, the name calling makes your arguments so much more convincing...

The point is, you know as well as I do the scumwads that have taken over in the "Arab Spring" are some really nasty people, and we will be paying for this stuff for years...

But you want to pretend that Obama hasn't screwed this up, too.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You think you are someone who can judge "sparks of insight" in others? You are a fucking looney-tune bigot. You make claims you cannot even begin to support and spend HOURS defending them rather than supporting them.

I decided to make fun of you today, instead of trying to talk sense into you. It has more to do with my mood than anything else. I might feel differently tomorrow. But, either way, you'll still be a dummy bigot.

OOooh, the name calling makes your arguments so much more convincing...

The point is, you know as well as I do the scumwads that have taken over in the "Arab Spring" are some really nasty people, and we will be paying for this stuff for years...

But you want to pretend that Obama hasn't screwed this up, too.

No, I do not know any such thing. You have claimed that Libya is being run by Al Quaeda. Unable to prove that claim, you now say that the people in charge are "really nasty people".

I think the people that used to run things there were pretty shitty and nasty. My understanding is that the people rose up in opposition to tyranny. Our nation, in a real international coalition effort, answered a call for help. There is now a power void to fill. As long as the people there end up with leadership that is democratically determined, I will consider it a positive.

While one could argue that we had no business helping the Libyan people get rid of their dictator, the fact remains that we do not get to pick who the citizens of other nation's have as leaders. If the people of Libya have fair elections and choose an Al Quaeda leader to run shit.......that is their business.

You also make the claim that we will be "paying for years". What do you mean by that? If you can't even identify who is, in fact, running Libya....how can you make such claims?

 

[8537]

Does the Union Leader agree with Newt that the CBO is a "reactionary socialist institution which does not believe in economic growth" )

I guess Newt is hell-bent on proving his batshit crazy credentials.

 

[JoeB131]

You think you are someone who can judge "sparks of insight" in others? You are a fucking looney-tune bigot. You make claims you cannot even begin to support and spend HOURS defending them rather than supporting them.

I decided to make fun of you today, instead of trying to talk sense into you. It has more to do with my mood than anything else. I might feel differently tomorrow. But, either way, you'll still be a dummy bigot.

OOooh, the name calling makes your arguments so much more convincing...

The point is, you know as well as I do the scumwads that have taken over in the "Arab Spring" are some really nasty people, and we will be paying for this stuff for years...

But you want to pretend that Obama hasn't screwed this up, too.

No, I do not know any such thing. You have claimed that Libya is being run by Al Quaeda. Unable to prove that claim, you now say that the people in charge are "really nasty people".

I think the people that used to run things there were pretty shitty and nasty. My understanding is that the people rose up in opposition to tyranny. Our nation, in a real international coalition effort, answered a call for help. There is now a power void to fill. As long as the people there end up with leadership that is democratically determined, I will consider it a positive.

While one could argue that we had no business helping the Libyan people get rid of their dictator, the fact remains that we do not get to pick who the citizens of other nation's have as leaders. If the people of Libya have fair elections and choose an Al Quaeda leader to run shit.......that is their business.

You also make the claim that we will be "paying for years". What do you mean by that? If you can't even identify who is, in fact, running Libya....how can you make such claims?

Guy, I don't do cites usually for a good reason. Because when I do, you guys do one of two things 1) Pretend you didn't see them and repeat the same bullshit on other threads or 2) Claim the source doesn't count for whatever reason it doesn't count. (Incidently, when I get into arguments with people on the right on issues i disagre with them on, they engage in the same behavior.)

What was going on in Libya was none of our business, and we backed the wrong side.

But here's some educational reading about our new friends...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda | Mail Online

MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida' | World news | The Guardian

 

[8537]

OOooh, the name calling makes your arguments so much more convincing...

The point is, you know as well as I do the scumwads that have taken over in the "Arab Spring" are some really nasty people, and we will be paying for this stuff for years...

But you want to pretend that Obama hasn't screwed this up, too.

No, I do not know any such thing. You have claimed that Libya is being run by Al Quaeda. Unable to prove that claim, you now say that the people in charge are "really nasty people".

I think the people that used to run things there were pretty shitty and nasty. My understanding is that the people rose up in opposition to tyranny. Our nation, in a real international coalition effort, answered a call for help. There is now a power void to fill. As long as the people there end up with leadership that is democratically determined, I will consider it a positive.

While one could argue that we had no business helping the Libyan people get rid of their dictator, the fact remains that we do not get to pick who the citizens of other nation's have as leaders. If the people of Libya have fair elections and choose an Al Quaeda leader to run shit.......that is their business.

You also make the claim that we will be "paying for years". What do you mean by that? If you can't even identify who is, in fact, running Libya....how can you make such claims?

Guy, I don't do cites usually for a good reason. Because when I do, you guys do one of two things 1) Pretend you didn't see them and repeat the same bullshit on other threads or 2) Claim the source doesn't count for whatever reason it doesn't count. (Incidently, when I get into arguments with people on the right on issues i disagre with them on, they engage in the same behavior.)

What was going on in Libya was none of our business, and we backed the wrong side.

But here's some educational reading about our new friends...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda | Mail Online

MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida' | World news | The Guardian

Let me see if I understood correctly: You think we should have backed Qaddafi in Libya? He was the "right side"?

 

[JoeB131]

No, I do not know any such thing. You have claimed that Libya is being run by Al Quaeda. Unable to prove that claim, you now say that the people in charge are "really nasty people".

I think the people that used to run things there were pretty shitty and nasty. My understanding is that the people rose up in opposition to tyranny. Our nation, in a real international coalition effort, answered a call for help. There is now a power void to fill. As long as the people there end up with leadership that is democratically determined, I will consider it a positive.

While one could argue that we had no business helping the Libyan people get rid of their dictator, the fact remains that we do not get to pick who the citizens of other nation's have as leaders. If the people of Libya have fair elections and choose an Al Quaeda leader to run shit.......that is their business.

You also make the claim that we will be "paying for years". What do you mean by that? If you can't even identify who is, in fact, running Libya....how can you make such claims?

Guy, I don't do cites usually for a good reason. Because when I do, you guys do one of two things 1) Pretend you didn't see them and repeat the same bullshit on other threads or 2) Claim the source doesn't count for whatever reason it doesn't count. (Incidently, when I get into arguments with people on the right on issues i disagre with them on, they engage in the same behavior.)

What was going on in Libya was none of our business, and we backed the wrong side.

But here's some educational reading about our new friends...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda | Mail Online

MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida' | World news | The Guardian

Let me see if I understood correctly: You think we should have backed Qaddafi in Libya? He was the "right side"?

I think we should have stayed the hell out of it...

I think that Qaddafi, while a bastard, was out of the international terrorism business by 2000 and was keeping the oil flowing. And that was the opinion of most of the west, who let him get back into polite company in the international community.

But I think Obama got us into the middle of this civil war so he could look tough while retreating from Iraq and Afghanistan, and he's made a bigger mess for us because he's essentially established a base for Al Qaeda to operate with impunity out of.

 

[8537]

Guy, I don't do cites usually for a good reason. Because when I do, you guys do one of two things 1) Pretend you didn't see them and repeat the same bullshit on other threads or 2) Claim the source doesn't count for whatever reason it doesn't count. (Incidently, when I get into arguments with people on the right on issues i disagre with them on, they engage in the same behavior.)

What was going on in Libya was none of our business, and we backed the wrong side.

But here's some educational reading about our new friends...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda | Mail Online

MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida' | World news | The Guardian

Let me see if I understood correctly: You think we should have backed Qaddafi in Libya? He was the "right side"?

I think that Qaddafi, while a bastard, was out of the international terrorism business by 2000 and was keeping the oil flowing. And that was the opinion of most of the west, who let him get back into polite company in the international community.

Polite company? He was slaughtering his own people.

 

[Toro]

Well, since we've veered off onto a tangent, it should be noted that Newt was for bombing Libya before he was against it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

OOooh, the name calling makes your arguments so much more convincing...

The point is, you know as well as I do the scumwads that have taken over in the "Arab Spring" are some really nasty people, and we will be paying for this stuff for years...

But you want to pretend that Obama hasn't screwed this up, too.

No, I do not know any such thing. You have claimed that Libya is being run by Al Quaeda. Unable to prove that claim, you now say that the people in charge are "really nasty people".

I think the people that used to run things there were pretty shitty and nasty. My understanding is that the people rose up in opposition to tyranny. Our nation, in a real international coalition effort, answered a call for help. There is now a power void to fill. As long as the people there end up with leadership that is democratically determined, I will consider it a positive.

While one could argue that we had no business helping the Libyan people get rid of their dictator, the fact remains that we do not get to pick who the citizens of other nation's have as leaders. If the people of Libya have fair elections and choose an Al Quaeda leader to run shit.......that is their business.

You also make the claim that we will be "paying for years". What do you mean by that? If you can't even identify who is, in fact, running Libya....how can you make such claims?

Guy, I don't do cites usually for a good reason. Because when I do, you guys do one of two things 1) Pretend you didn't see them and repeat the same bullshit on other threads or 2) Claim the source doesn't count for whatever reason it doesn't count. (Incidently, when I get into arguments with people on the right on issues i disagre with them on, they engage in the same behavior.)

What was going on in Libya was none of our business, and we backed the wrong side.

But here's some educational reading about our new friends...

Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links - Telegraph

Flying proudly over the birthplace of Libya's revolution, the flag of Al Qaeda | Mail Online

MI6 role in Libyan rebels' rendition 'helped to strengthen al-Qaida' | World news | The Guardian

Do any of those links prove that Al Qaeda is leading Libya?

 

[JoeB131]

Let me see if I understood correctly: You think we should have backed Qaddafi in Libya? He was the "right side"?

I think that Qaddafi, while a bastard, was out of the international terrorism business by 2000 and was keeping the oil flowing. And that was the opinion of most of the west, who let him get back into polite company in the international community.

Polite company? He was slaughtering his own people.

So what?

Do you think that if a bunch of folks in the Red States suddenly took up Arms against the government, we wouldn't do the same thing?

Fact is, the West was trading with him, allowed him to get some of his citizens back who were imprisoned in terrorism cases, and they were investing in his oil industry. Until the rebellion started, and they figured they could take advantage.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, since we've veered off onto a tangent, it should be noted that Newt was for bombing Libya before he was against it.

Actually, it is a lot more complicated than that... but I can understand your problem, as Newt is now ahead of Romney in three of the four early states.

 

[8537]

So what?

Do you think that if a bunch of folks in the Red States suddenly took up Arms against the government, we wouldn't do the same thing?

If the US government was slaughtering them first, I think foreign nations would support the Red states.

By the way, do you agree with Newt that the CBO is reactionary socialist institution?

 

[JoeB131]

So what?

Do you think that if a bunch of folks in the Red States suddenly took up Arms against the government, we wouldn't do the same thing?

If the US government was slaughtering them first, I think foreign nations would support the Red states.

By the way, do you agree with Newt that the CBO is reactionary socialist institution?

He worked with them for decades, so it probably is...

Back to Libya, the thing was, Qadaffi didn't start slaughtering them until they took up arms, provided by other Islamists in Tunisnia and Egypt.

Again, both sides are equally bad in this mess... It's like we keep sticking our hands in the hornets' nest and keep hoping some of the hornets are friendly.

Until they sting us.

We used to think Bin Laden was a plucky freedom fighter and Saddam was a sensible alternative to the crazy Mullahs in Iran.

How did that work out for us?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Are you now accusing President Obama of doing what other Presidents have done regarding ME policy?

 

[JoeB131]

Are you now accusing President Obama of doing what other Presidents have done regarding ME policy?

With one major difference. He should have learned from their experiences..

And I thought that was the point, no? That he saw military adventerism in the ME as a bad thing, and he was going to put an end to it...

Except his actions are more reckless than any of his predecessors.

 

[Toro]

Well, since we've veered off onto a tangent, it should be noted that Newt was for bombing Libya before he was against it.

Actually, it is a lot more complicated than that... but I can understand your problem, as Newt is now ahead of Romney in three of the four early states.

Actually, it's not more complicated than that. The Freddie Mac lobbyist has a long history of switching his positions when it is politically convenient. Now, if he were a Mormon, that would piss you off. But since you don't want a Mormon to be President under any circumstance, you have cast your lot with the former supporter of global warming, at least for this month.