I wonder what they'll do to Joe The Shoe Thrower

[Mac1337]

When defending your country is ridiculed as jingoism, what does treason even mean anymore? What was the last time anyone defended America and was not laughed at as some hillbilly redneck.

[Mac1337]

deckeda wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
By this yardstick every US president has blood on his hands.

Safety in numbers? The current Pres can't be critiziced because the previous ones were not perfect? Where does this logic come from?
Who said anything about criticism? When someone calls Bush a murderer, he should be prepared to call every other president in the past 60 years, and surely the one coming up next month, war criminals.

[Black Landlord]

Stizzealth wrote:
Black Landlord:

You assume that dissent is automatically correct, because pessimism always sounds sage. But that's just plain wrong. I enjoy using my freedom to disagree with you, as you enjoy (misguidedly) your freedom to dump on the President.

A little wordplay for today:

If dissent is the highest form of patriotism, and treason is the highest form of dissent, is treason patriotic?

The above post would make some sense if I felt it was obligatory to "dump" on every president. But I don't. Only the ones that are unparalleled in the disgrace they've brought upon this country.
Next?

[Black Landlord]

swampy wrote:
BL

For his own personal gain... What has he gained? The hatred and derision of his fellow Americans? Yeah, that is really something to shoot for. You know, I don't recall a hue and cry when Tommy Franks set the troops loose on Iraq. Where were all you naysayers then? Hind sight is 20/20.

Respect has to be earned. His was squandered long ago. He has disgraced the office, and frankly I find it un-american that you're not willing to celebrate your freedom to acknowledge that.

That's your opinion, BL and you are entitled to it. What I don't understand is why, because I disagree with you, I'm "un-American". Do you celebrate your freedom by denying mine? We'd still be British subjects if it wasn't for opposing views.

What Don Kiyote said.

[Black Landlord]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=deckeda]
[quote=Dakota]
By this yardstick every US president has blood on his hands.

Safety in numbers? The current Pres can't be critiziced because the previous ones were not perfect? Where does this logic come from?
Who said anything about criticism? When someone calls Bush a murderer, he should be prepared to call every other president in the past 60 years, and surely the one coming up next month, war criminals.
There's some nuance here that I'm not patient enough to try to explain to you.

[Stizzealth]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=deckeda]
[quote=Dakota]
By this yardstick every US president has blood on his hands.

Safety in numbers? The current Pres can't be critiziced because the previous ones were not perfect? Where does this logic come from?
Who said anything about criticism? When someone calls Bush a murderer, he should be prepared to call every other president in the past 60 years, and surely the one coming up next month, war criminals.
There's some nuance here that I'm not patient enough to try to explain to you.
Translation:

Alright, fine, you got me. I really don't like admitting I'm wrong, though, so I'm just going to shovel the ball into your court.

[Black Landlord]

Stizzealth wrote:
[quote=Black Landlord]
[quote=Dakota]
[quote=deckeda]
[quote=Dakota]
By this yardstick every US president has blood on his hands.

Safety in numbers? The current Pres can't be critiziced because the previous ones were not perfect? Where does this logic come from?
Who said anything about criticism? When someone calls Bush a murderer, he should be prepared to call every other president in the past 60 years, and surely the one coming up next month, war criminals.
There's some nuance here that I'm not patient enough to try to explain to you.
Translation:

Alright, fine, you got me. I really don't like admitting I'm wrong, though, so I'm just going to shovel the ball into your court.
What am I wrong about? Are you even trying to relate your tit-for-tat to anything being specifically argued in this thread?
*yawn*

[Mac1337]

Black Landlord wrote:
]

What am I wrong about?

How much time you have? You have written more avoiding my question than if you had actually answered it. I assure you that Obama will have "blood" on his hands before he goes to bed on January 20th. That is just the nature of US presidency. They have to kill for us. Sometimes it takes atom bombs, sometimes cluster bombs. Makes you uncomfortable? Me too. But hey, that is the nature of the job.

[Black Landlord]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Black Landlord]
]

What am I wrong about?

How much time you have? You have written more avoiding my question than if you had actually answered it. I assure you that Obama will have "blood" on his hands before he goes to bed on January 20th. That is just the nature of US presidency. They have to kill for us. Sometimes it takes atom bombs, sometimes cluster bombs. Makes you uncomfortable? Me too. But hey, that is the nature of the job.
Not sure who you're addressing but if it's me you don't seem to understand my views very well. I'll give it a quick shot:
There's a difference between a president who takes action that results in sacrificed lives in order to defend our safety, and one who takes action that results in sacrificed lives for the pursuit of wealth and material resources.
Misconstrue that . . .

[vision63]

Dakota wrote:
[quote=Black Landlord]
]

What am I wrong about?

How much time you have? You have written more avoiding my question than if you had actually answered it. I assure you that Obama will have "blood" on his hands before he goes to bed on January 20th. That is just the nature of US presidency. They have to kill for us. Sometimes it takes atom bombs, sometimes cluster bombs. Makes you uncomfortable? Me too. But hey, that is the nature of the job.
That's just it. He didn't have to kill for us in Iraq. But he did anyway and it was all based on pure lies. What does that make George W. Bush considering those lies led to hundreds of thousands of deaths? Another garden variety terrorist. Period. Now if he honestly thought there were weapons of mass destruction there, it would be a different story (yet still a stupid decision), but he "knowingly" chose to ignore reality, tell us that Iraq was tied to 9/11 and then invade. All of that was for us? No, it was for all this people that wanted a new world order and control of the region.

Go take some pills, drink some elixir or something. Absorb the reality some kind of way. But then, we're all more stupid than he is since we allowed him to do it. Pick a better Republican to tout, Bush is a dud.