Organized Democrat Disinformation Campaign On The Port Deal

archangel said:
This whole DWP issue has degenerated into We vs Them...being Dems vs Gop rather than a united front against the real enemy...Radical Islam...Everyone seems to now dismiss the bi-partisan effort after 911 and are just posturing for election bids and corporate financing of same!

The We vs Them mentality goes back decades--this is nothing new. The dems paused briefly after 9/11 but quickly renewed their attack on anything conservative. The DPW deal isnt GOP vs Dem. It's a bunch of people who disagree on how to manage national security.
 
dilloduck said:
The We vs Them mentality goes back decades--this is nothing new. The dems paused briefly after 9/11 but quickly renewed their attack on anything conservative. The DPW deal isnt GOP vs Dem. It's a bunch of people who disagree on how to manage national security.

Not what you were saying earlier:


#37 Absolute trust in administration, no need for ‘review’:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=3&pp=15

#50 If we insist on investigation, we are ‘cowards.’

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15

#54 Against not allowing the deal to go through:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15

#56 Would trust the Arab firm more than ‘dems’ meaning members of Congress, from the opposing party:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: OCA
Kathianne said:
Not what you were saying earlier:


#37 Absolute trust in administration, no need for ‘review’:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=3&pp=15

#50 If we insist on investigation, we are ‘cowards.’

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15

#54 Against not allowing the deal to go through:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15

#56 Would trust the Arab firm more than ‘dems’ meaning members of Congress, from the opposing party:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29666&page=4&pp=15


WOW---you want to try these one by one? What an amazingly inaccurate interpration of what I actually DID say.

#37 Absolute trust in administration, no need for ‘review’:

what don't you quote what I actually DID day and then post how you interpret it.
 
No, that would take forever to post those and all the related. I trust everyone here is capable of reading and making their own judgements. You doubt that?
 
Kathianne said:
No, that would take forever to post those and all the related. I trust everyone here is capable of reading and making their own judgements. You doubt that?

Post #37

Originally Posted by rtwngAvngr
Dillo. No one wants to face the administration is brazenly selling us out. I don't want to face it, either.



It's not--cheer up.

Your interpretation;

#37 Absolute trust in administration, no need for ‘review’:

thats not even close!
 
dilloduck said:
Post #37

Originally Posted by rtwngAvngr
Dillo. No one wants to face the administration is brazenly selling us out. I don't want to face it, either.



It's not--cheer up.

That's what appears for yours, problem is that it's two posts, yours and RWA, which is difficult to tell:
-----------------------------------------------

Post #37

Originally Posted by rtwngAvngr said:
Dillo. No one wants to face the administration is brazenly selling us out. I don't want to face it, either.



dilloduck said:
It's not--cheer up.
 
Kathianne said:
That's what appears for yours, problem is that it's two posts, yours and RWA, which is difficult to tell:
-----------------------------------------------

Post #37


either way---somehow you interpret that to mean that I think the administration should be trusted absolutely and the was no need for review?

I sure don't see it but don't plan to argue about it anymore unless you think it needs to be clarified further.
 
dilloduck said:
either way---somehow you interpret that to mean that I think the administration should be trusted absolutely and the was no need for review?

I sure don't see it but don't plan to argue about it anymore unless you think it needs to be clarified further.
Nope, no reason.
 

Forum List

Back
Top