- Banned
- #101
The post shows how libs view history. You seem to support that view of the Soviet Union and the reason it fell
address MY words, or shut the fuck up.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The post shows how libs view history. You seem to support that view of the Soviet Union and the reason it fell
address MY words, or shut the fuck up.
The post shows how libs view history. You seem to support that view of the Soviet Union and the reason it fell
nothing I have ever written in any way supports that goofy article. You clearly are an illiterate fool.
My the truth does put you in a testy mood MM
The Soviets grew until Reagan. Libs were bellowing how Reagan would start WWIII, and how the increase of the US military would start another arms race
Once again, libs were on the wrong side of history. No surprise there
no... the facts are clear...if you were able to read my words and comprehend them, you would know that they did not say what that article said in the least. YOur inability to discern that shows a real reading comprehension problem.
Truth and facts to MM is like Holy Water to the Devil
I stated nothing like what that article states. that is clear.
Your distorted view of history is similiar
show me where what I wrote about the cumulative effects of the cold war on the soviet union is similar in any way to that article. Show quotes from my words and that article that are at all similar. you know you can't do it.
res Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviets - even thiough libs like you were screaming the US should not build up arms or put nukes in Europe
Yes, the appeasing libs were wrong AGAIN
What do you mean? Eishenhower signed the armistice in Korea, Ford abandoned Vietnam, and look how Reagan's efforts in Nicaragua turned out. The Republicans have repeatedly failed to honorably protect and serve this country. Spineless conservatives would have you believe otherwise, but the truth is readily apparent if you look for it. The truth is they'll say that they can handle the responsiblity of war, but time and time again the Republicans have failed to show the courage and wisdom necessary to lead this nation, instead perferring to hurt our troops while lining their own pockets. Let's not even get into the lies and corruption...
What do I mean? I mean that in every case I mentioned liberals took the side of the communist enemy. They brought about lots of political pressure favoring the side of the enemy. This has become a pattern of behavior among liberals - to side with anyone against America and against freedom. It's gotten to the point where it's becoming embarrassing for knowing Democrats, especially since the recent fall of the Soviet Union. That's why Democrat leaders like Hillary are all over the map when it comes to dealing with Iraq. Can you explain to me why liberals have historically been such appeasers?
With the Iraq war it's been more of the same pattern - more liberal political pressure for anti-war appeasement and anti-Americanism. We toppled a nasty dictator who ignored endless UN sanctions and gave millions their freedom in Iraq yet you'd think we'd committed an inhumane atrocity according to liberals. Despite subsequent problems that have developed in Iraq, nothing changes that fact.
I agree that Bush could have handled the aftermath better than he has done. It's been frustrating. After knocking out Saddam, the primary goal should've been to forcefully secure the country - no holds barred - and kept it that way. I believe this could still be done but certainly not with the undermining Democrats at the helm.
I disagree with your characterization of liberals as "historically such appeasers". We toppled a nasty dictator.... so what? the world is filled with nasty dictators, are we responsible for toppling each and every one at a cost of 26K dead and wounded and a trillion dollars a pop?
and I find it laughable that the right - who in one breath is screaming about how completely irrelevant and corrupt the UN is and how we ought to be getting OUT of the organization - in the next breath thinks that the resolutions passed by this irrelevant and corrupt organization are so important that we need to go fight a war - a war that that very same corrupt organization does NOT want us to fight - just to uphold those resolutions.
Well, if our listening to the UN was such a laugh to you, let's dump the UN.
You have the right to disagree with me about liberals being appeasers but you can't disagree with the facts of history.
No, we are not responsible for every dictator....just the ones who we find to be a threat to our country's security and the security of our allies.
Why are we using Town Hall as a source for attempted discussion? Why not use a credible source of information?
I don't do ridicule. I am just pointing out that it is an non-objective and obviously biased source. That is all.