Top 9 reasons a Dem president couldn't handle the war against terrorists

My the truth does put you in a testy mood MM

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.
 
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

The Soviet growth actually stopped in the 1970s, and it wasn't because of anything Carter, or Reagan did. They finally hit a barrier of capital and labor growth in their economy, and were not getting any TFP growth. Their central planning was unable to sustain a modern economy, and they especially had trouble with agriculture and consumer goods.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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


so you can't seem to find any words in the post from me just above that sounds anything like the article?

why didn't you just say so?

and I have NEVER said that Reagan had NOTHING to do with the fall of the soviets....do you need to take basic reading comprehension courses?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. :eusa_whistle:

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.
 
Well, if our listening to the UN was such a laugh to you, let's dump the UN. :eusa_whistle:

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.


you can't have it both ways... you can't want to dump the UN in one breath and then use the resolutions of their security council as a justification for starting a war in the next breath. take your pick.

I can certainly disagree with your interpretation of the "facts of history" and I do.

Saddam was not a threat to our country's security.... and he was not a threat to our allies. Go back and read what Colin Powell was saying about Saddam BEFORE 9/11.... his presentation in Cairo in the spring of 2001 was pretty convincing....much more convincing than the pack of lies he fed the UN security council a year later....and, interestingly enough, Powell has no regrets about his assessment of Saddam made in Cairo...he DOES regret his "pitch" to the UN.
 
Why are we using Town Hall as a source for attempted discussion? Why not use a credible source of information?

Gab, don't. Townhall is ok, as is New Republic. Take it or leave it, but don't bother with ridicule.
 

Forum List

Back
Top