McCain not fit to be president

[gabosaurus]

John McCain's anger problems and declining mental facilities would make him a very dangerous leader of the largest country in the free world. A man who mocks and bullies his own constituents should not be allowed access to America's military and nuclear resources.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/

[mundame]

John McCain's anger problems and declining mental facilities would make him a very dangerous leader of the largest country in the free world. A man who mocks and bullies his own constituents should not be allowed access to America's military and nuclear resources.



Yeah. The man's a warmonger, eager to stay in losing wars forever and probably to fight several more. We'll have a draft in two weeks if McCain is elected, and I'm not voting for any of that.

[DragonStryk72]

John McCain's anger problems and declining mental facilities would make him a very dangerous leader of the largest country in the free world. A man who mocks and bullies his own constituents should not be allowed access to America's military and nuclear resources.

http://mccaininsults.wordpress.com/

Actually, most republicans would seem to agree with you, and you can see it in the way that so many are looking now for a party that holds their ideals more than the current republican party is doing.

[mundame]

Actually, most republicans would seem to agree with you, and you can see it in the way that so many are looking now for a party that holds their ideals more than the current republican party is doing.



Namely, the Libertarians, if they would ever start presenting us with real live candidates.

[avatar4321]

Yeah. The man's a warmonger, eager to stay in losing wars forever and probably to fight several more. We'll have a draft in two weeks if McCain is elected, and I'm not voting for any of that.

exactly what wars have we lost?

[mundame]

exactly what wars have we lost?

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

And McCain will just throw live after dead for years, if he gets in.

[manu1959]

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

And McCain will just throw live after dead for years, if he gets in.

really we lost both those....fucking hell i should watch the news.......

did you read where the angry old lady and the preacher want more troops in afganistan.....

[mundame]

really we lost both those....fucking hell i should watch the news.......


Yes. Try today's news, where 60 people died in explosions in those very Sunni areas we were supposed to have "rescued." More lies by our government.

[Monkeybone]

Namely, the Libertarians, if they would ever start presenting us with real live candidates. i'm gonna run for POTUS under Libertarian when i get old enough. look out world!


Yes. Try today's news, where 60 people died in explosions in those very Sunni areas we were supposed to have "rescued." More lies by our government. meh, it's also hard to keep track of who is for us and who is against us when it can change within a day as well. my whole reason for pulling out is clearly they don't wanna change so why should we waste more lives and money on them.

[manu1959]

Yes. Try today's news, where 60 people died in explosions in those very Sunni areas we were supposed to have "rescued." More lies by our government.

wow that is it ..... it is over ......we surrendered.....who did our generals surrender to?.......

[mundame]

wow that is it ..... it is over ......we surrendered.....who did our generals surrender to?.......


You can't imagine a war being lost without one side surrendering?

MOST wars are settled without surrenders. Like the War of 1812. Like World War I. Like Korea. Like Vietnam.

[manu1959]

You can't imagine a war being lost without one side surrendering?

MOST wars are settled without surrenders. Like the War of 1812. Like World War I. Like Korea. Like Vietnam.

so you list 4 wars one of which is technically still in a cease fire.....and extrapolate to most......

if two sides still fight is not the war in progress.....and thus not over or lost.....to lose you would have to stop fighting no....

[mundame]

if two sides still fight is not the war in progress.....and thus not over or lost.....to lose you would have to stop fighting no....


Interesting question. No, I'd say sometimes it's clear one side has already lost -- can't win -- even if they fight on for awhile. That was our situation in Vietnam. That was also the Germans' situation during the summer of 1918, when their field marshall Ludendorf had a nervous breakdown and was having the coffin of his dead stepson moved with him wherever he camped so he could talk to it; and he was telling the Kaiser it was time to sue for an Armistice and regroup and start the war up five years later (it took them 20 years, though, and Ludendorf was still up for it till the end), and the German troops got to hear of this somehow and were giving up by the thousands, climbing out of their trenches with their hands up, which they had never done before. And Germany was starving because of the effective blockade and there were riots in the streets ----- there was still fighting, and the allies thought the war would go on till 1919, but it didn't.

Germany couldn't win. But they never surrendered.

So I would say that is a good question, but that the answer is, sometimes the momentum is so clearly against one side that they are defeated even while they are in the field.

And that's what happened to us in Vietnam, and what that idiot Bush has let happen to us again.

[hjmick]

Germany couldn't win. But they never surrendered.



On April 30, 1945, as Russian troops fought to within yards of his subterranean bunker, Adolph Hitler put a pistol to his head, pulled the trigger and closed the curtain on the Third Reich. Before his death, Hitler anointed Admiral Karl Donitz as his successor with orders to continue the fighting. Hitler was unaware that the German surrender had already begun.

On the day before his death all German troops in Italy laid down their arms. On May 4, German forces in Holland, Denmark and northwest Germany surrendered to British Field Marshall Montgomery. On May 6, Donitz authorized General Alfred Jodl to "conclude an armistice agreement" with General Eisenhower. The Germans wanted a separate peace with the allied troops in the West in order to continue their battle with the Russians in the East. Eisenhower would have none of it. He ordered the Germans to surrender unconditionally the next day. The Germans acquiesced, signing the surrender document on May 7, in the French city of Reims. The cessation of fighting took effect at 11:01 PM on May 8. The Russians insisted that a separate signing take place in Berlin on May 9. After six catastrophic years, the war in Europe was over.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vosurrender.htm

[manu1959]

Interesting question. No, I'd say sometimes it's clear one side has already lost -- can't win -- even if they fight on for awhile. That was our situation in Vietnam. That was also the Germans' situation during the summer of 1918, when their field marshall Ludendorf had a nervous breakdown and was having the coffin of his dead stepson moved with him wherever he camped so he could talk to it; and he was telling the Kaiser it was time to sue for an Armistice and regroup and start the war up five years later (it took them 20 years, though, and Ludendorf was still up for it till the end), and the German troops got to hear of this somehow and were giving up by the thousands, climbing out of their trenches with their hands up, which they had never done before. And Germany was starving because of the effective blockade and there were riots in the streets ----- there was still fighting, and the allies thought the war would go on till 1919, but it didn't.

Germany couldn't win. But they never surrendered.

So I would say that is a good question, but that the answer is, sometimes the momentum is so clearly against one side that they are defeated even while they are in the field.

And that's what happened to us in Vietnam, and what that idiot Bush has let happen to us again.

vietnam we quit.....we didn't lose.....the politicians and the press lost the war

wwi was a a cease fire wwii was the completion and germany did surrender...

bush is simply fighting the second half of gulf war I......and once again the politicians and the press are trying their darndest to stuff defeat inton the jaws of victory......

8 years of clinton taught the terrorists american's are pussies and the dems and the press back it up every chance they get.....

[mundame]

On April 30, 1945, as Russian troops fought to within yards of his subterranean bunker, Adolph Hitler put a pistol to his head, pulled the trigger and closed the curtain on the Third Reich. Before his death, Hitler anointed Admiral Karl Donitz as his successor with orders to continue the fighting. Hitler was unaware that the German surrender had already begun.

On the day before his death all German troops in Italy laid down their arms. On May 4, German forces in Holland, Denmark and northwest Germany surrendered to British Field Marshall Montgomery. On May 6, Donitz authorized General Alfred Jodl to "conclude an armistice agreement" with General Eisenhower. The Germans wanted a separate peace with the allied troops in the West in order to continue their battle with the Russians in the East. Eisenhower would have none of it. He ordered the Germans to surrender unconditionally the next day. The Germans acquiesced, signing the surrender document on May 7, in the French city of Reims. The cessation of fighting took effect at 11:01 PM on May 8. The Russians insisted that a separate signing take place in Berlin on May 9. After six catastrophic years, the war in Europe was over.

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/vosurrender.htm


I was talking about WWI, not WWII. The Germans did indeed surrender in WWII.

[hjmick]

I was talking about WWI, not WWII. The Germans did indeed surrender in WWII.

My mistake.

[mundame]

vietnam we quit.....we didn't lose.....the politicians and the press lost the war

I'd say we first lost and then we quit. None too soon, either, ten years and 58,000 dead. I'd prefer we not go through all that again. 4,000 dead in Iraq are QUITE enough.




wwi was a a cease fire wwii was the completion and germany did surrender...

bush is simply fighting the second half of gulf war I......and once again the politicians and the press are trying their darndest to stuff defeat inton the jaws of victory......



You have some interesting ideas, manu1959. I'm realizing it's the brand new wave of thinking about WWII to view it as all one war with WWI. I was hearing in a lecture that this is because more and more years have gone by and we can see it as one big war, but at the time, it was 20 years of people's lives, and so it seemed two separate wars. But I agree with this new thinking, really: that was one big, long war. Those Germans just were not willing to lose! We had to essentially destroy all their cities and then occupy them for 65 years --- a difficult people to persuade, the Germans.



8 years of clinton taught the terrorists american's are pussies and the dems and the press back it up every chance they get.....

I can't see it. The terrorists struck nine months into Bush's presidency; it was on his watch. And he screwed it up, lost bin Laden in Afghanistan, lost focus and tried to play another agenda in Iraq, lost that too. Now he's letting North Korea get away with all their usual lies and Iran is publicly starting up 6,000 more nuclear centrifuges to make fuel for nukes. Bush lost nuclear non-proliferation, as well as two wars.

I think terrorists may well have a low opinion of Bush like nearly everyone else does, but they'd better watch out with the next prez. There will be tests of the next president, of course, there always are.

[Yurt]

my understanding is that in afganistan we went to war against the taliban, they are ousted, a new government is in, iraq was with saddam's government, a new government is in.

japan continued to experience insurgency after their surrender...would you then say we lost to japan?

[Yurt]

I'd say we first lost and then we quit. None too soon, either, ten years and 58,000 dead. I'd prefer we not go through all that again. 4,000 dead in Iraq are QUITE enough.





You have some interesting ideas, manu1959. I'm realizing it's the brand new wave of thinking about WWII to view it as all one war with WWI. I was hearing in a lecture that this is because more and more years have gone by and we can see it as one big war, but at the time, it was 20 years of people's lives, and so it seemed two separate wars. But I agree with this new thinking, really: that was one big, long war. Those Germans just were not willing to lose! We had to essentially destroy all their cities and then occupy them for 65 years --- a difficult people to persuade, the Germans.




I can't see it. The terrorists struck nine months into Bush's presidency; it was on his watch. And he screwed it up, lost bin Laden in Afghanistan, lost focus and tried to play another agenda in Iraq, lost that too. Now he's letting North Korea get away with all their usual lies and Iran is publicly starting up 6,000 more nuclear centrifuges to make fuel for nukes. Bush lost nuclear non-proliferation, as well as two wars.

I think terrorists may well have a low opinion of Bush like nearly everyone else does, but they'd better watch out with the next prez. There will be tests of the next president, of course, there always are.

you don't think they were planning that operation long before Bush got into office?

[hjmick]

you don't think they were planning that operation long before Bush got into office?

May I direct your attention to February 26, 1993?

[mundame]

my understanding is that in afganistan we went to war against the taliban, they are ousted, a new government is in, iraq was with saddam's government, a new government is in.


Good, then if everything is so wonderful, why can't we leave?



japan continued to experience insurgency after their surrender...would you then say we lost to japan?

Never heard of it, it can't have amounted to much. Same with Germany.

The trick in war is to conclusively, definitely DEFEAT the enemy. All this poncing around treating them like they are our new bestest friends like we did in Iraq, that's just asking for trouble, and boy, did we get trouble.

We definitely defeated Japan and Germany and they definitely surrendered. After that, we didn't have any more trouble with them. I'd advise not going to war at all unless we are willing to defeat a new enemy, because they have attacked us. Then defeat them!! Don't prance around pretending to be their friends!! They don't believe it and it doesn't work.

[Yurt]

May I direct your attention to February 26, 1993?

exactly....


Good, then if everything is so wonderful, why can't we leave?


Never heard of it, it can't have amounted to much. Same with Germany.

The trick in war is to conclusively, definitely DEFEAT the enemy. All this poncing around treating them like they are our new bestest friends like we did in Iraq, that's just asking for trouble, and boy, did we get trouble.

We definitely defeated Japan and Germany and they definitely surrendered. After that, we didn't have any more trouble with them. I'd advise not going to war at all unless we are willing to defeat a new enemy, because they have attacked us. Then defeat them!! Don't prance around pretending to be their friends!! They don't believe it and it doesn't work.

its not as simple as you suggest, so who is our "enemy" in iraq/afganistan? i am willing to say that the "enemies" in both places make up less population per capita than do criminals in the US. it is police action, not war.

[mundame]

its not as simple as you suggest, so who is our "enemy" in iraq/afganistan?

Who knows? Certainly not the U.S. Army, or they would long since have killed them. We're trying to make all sides be our little friends, but they don't want to be our friends because we've invaded their country.


[quote]i am willing to say that the "enemies" in both places make up less population per capita than do criminals in the US. it is police action, not war.

Stupid place to have an army, then ---- give the job to the Iraqi police and get out.

[Yurt]

[quote=Yurt;232197]
its not as simple as you suggest, so who is our "enemy" in iraq/afganistan?

Who knows? Certainly not the U.S. Army, or they would long since have killed them. We're trying to make all sides be our little friends, but they don't want to be our friends because we've invaded their country.




Stupid place to have an army, then ---- give the job to the Iraqi police and get out.

so the US military did not stay in japan? oh wait, they are still there....

[retiredman]

so the US military did not stay in japan? oh wait, they are still there....


do you think we are there against the will of the people of Japan?

[Dilloduck]

do you think we are there against the will of the people of Japan?

Of course we are.

[hjmick]

do you think we are there against the will of the people of Japan?

Based on some news reports, yes.

[retiredman]

Based on some news reports, yes.:link:

[avatar4321]

Iraq.

Afghanistan.

And McCain will just throw live after dead for years, if he gets in.

when did we lose either of those wars?

[Dilloduck]

:link:

Ask any Okinawan. They have been trying to get rid of us ever since they climbed out of their caves.

[hjmick]

:link:

Oh come on MfM, every time a member of our military is accused of a crime over there, there are Japanese citizens calling for us to get out of Okinawa.

[mundame]

when did we lose either of those wars?


Late 2003 for Iraq --- when Abu Ghraib happened. After that it was all over but the dying.

Afghanistan was lost at Tora Bora, of course. That was 2002, wasn't it?

[manu1959]

Late 2003 for Iraq --- when Abu Ghraib happened. After that it was all over but the dying.

Afghanistan was lost at Tora Bora, of course. That was 2002, wasn't it?

really.....lost huh......where did you your degree in international affairs....

[retiredman]

really.....lost huh......where did you your degree in international affairs....

the same place you got yours in english composition.

[Yurt]

do you think we are there against the will of the people of Japan?

yeah, i'm sure the loved us immediately after wwii and have you been reading the news :poke:

[retiredman]

yeah, i'm sure the loved us immediately after wwii and have you been reading the news :poke:


thoe point is: we became strong allies of Japan... there is little chance of us being similarly allied with Iraq.

for you to suggest otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"

[Yurt]

thoe point is: we became strong allies of Japan... there is little chance of us being similarly allied with Iraq.

for you to suggest otherwise is "intellectually dishonest"

thats what many thought in the beginning, many hard liner japanese, in the end the population wanted peace, exactly what you are seeing in iraq. its not intellectually dishonest, you shouldn't use big words, you don't know how to wield them very good.

you know full well that the insurgency is a very, very small portion of the "population" (many are not even from iraq)

[retiredman]

thats what many thought in the beginning, many hard liner japanese, in the end the population wanted peace, exactly what you are seeing in iraq. its not intellectually dishonest, you shouldn't use big words, you don't know how to wield them very good.

you know full well that the insurgency is a very, very small portion of the "population" (many are not even from iraq)


wield is a verb. good is an adjective. well is an adverb.

you don't know how to write very well.


polls suggest that Iraqis want us out of Iraq...and NOT to develop or maintain a long term strategic relationship with them.

BTW...Do judges laugh you out of court for your pathetic grammar?

[Yurt]

wield is a verb. good is an adjective. well is an adverb.

you don't know how to write very well.


polls suggest that Iraqis want us out of Iraq...and NOT to develop or maintain a long term strategic relationship with them.

BTW...Do judges laugh you out of court for your pathetic grammar?

hahahahaha :lmao:

wield:



Main Entry: wield
Pronunciation: \ˈwēld\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English welden to control, from Old English wieldan; akin to Old High German waltan to rule, Latin valēre to be strong, be worth
Date: before 12th century
1chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : manage
OR
2: [B][U]to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom
3 a: to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b: have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials — G. W. Bonham>
— wield·er noun


you just pwned yourself moron :laugh2:

[Pale Rider]

Oh yeah.... what we need to save this county....is a lop eared, racist, anti American negro with problems that stem from hatred for white people, hatred of America, hatred of religion, hatred of conservatism..... we MUST have a person that will tax us to DEATH, spend the country into into oblivion, take all our fire arms, murder all the unborn, embrace homosexuality as cute and cudly, surrender to our foes and decimate our military, hand over key functions to illegals aliens, and in general, make a America a piece of shit mush pie ready for the dump..... yeah...... that's what we need. Some fucking half breed negro named hussein... that's our only way to survive...


and person here that believes that shit.... can GO TO HELL! You have ZERO sense or reality.

[red states rule]

Interesting question. No, I'd say sometimes it's clear one side has already lost -- can't win -- even if they fight on for awhile. That was our situation in Vietnam. That was also the Germans' situation during the summer of 1918, when their field marshall Ludendorf had a nervous breakdown and was having the coffin of his dead stepson moved with him wherever he camped so he could talk to it; and he was telling the Kaiser it was time to sue for an Armistice and regroup and start the war up five years later (it took them 20 years, though, and Ludendorf was still up for it till the end), and the German troops got to hear of this somehow and were giving up by the thousands, climbing out of their trenches with their hands up, which they had never done before. And Germany was starving because of the effective blockade and there were riots in the streets ----- there was still fighting, and the allies thought the war would go on till 1919, but it didn't.

Germany couldn't win. But they never surrendered.

So I would say that is a good question, but that the answer is, sometimes the momentum is so clearly against one side that they are defeated even while they are in the field.

And that's what happened to us in Vietnam, and what that idiot Bush has let happen to us again.

Once again Mundame, you have no idea what is going on in Iraq

What a Difference …
A year makes. A report from Fallujah, Iraq.


A year ago Shura Chamal-Eit (Elizabeth Street) in downtown Fallujah was a lethal place for American troops attempting to tame the city, a center of lawlessness and defiance by insurgents. Terrorists from Al Qaeda in Iraq and other groups attacked Coalition troops on the street and around the city, killing some and injuring many. But as U.S. Marines here pass yet another Christmas fighting a war few expected to last this long, Fallujah is on the verge of becoming a success story and symbol of a new, cooperative paradigm for winning Iraq.

Fed up with the wanton assassinations and summary executions by Al Qaeda in Iraq and alarmed that the group was strangling Fallujah's economy, city leaders and residents joined forces with the Marines to expel the group. Many Fallujah residents once offered help to insurgents or at best looked the other way when they fired rocket-propelled grenades, mortar and artillery at Marines and killed or maimed them with the dreaded improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that became commonplace. The same residents now identify insurgents to the Iraqi Army and Iraqi police force, who kill, capture or drive them from the city. Many of the terrorists have fled into the desert, often into Tharthar, an area also in Anbar province, north of Fallujah.

Marines who once passed their days trying to stay alive now work as virtual municipal employees, trying to restore and expand services like electricity, trash collection and water treatment. "I'm getting ready to go sit in on a political meeting at city hall," says Lt. Col. Christopher Dowling, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines Regiment.

for the complete article

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81993

[retiredman]

hahahahaha :lmao:

wield:



Main Entry: wield
Pronunciation: \ˈwēld\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English welden to control, from Old English wieldan; akin to Old High German waltan to rule, Latin valēre to be strong, be worth
Date: before 12th century
1chiefly dialect : to deal successfully with : manage
OR
2: [U]to handle (as a tool) especially effectively <wield a broom
3 a: to exert one's authority by means of <wield influence> b: have at one's command or disposal <did not wield appropriate credentials — G. W. Bonham>
— wield·er noun


you just pwned yourself moron :laugh2:


no. you did.

your previous statement was:

"you shouldn't use big words, you don't know how to wield them very [B]good".

instead of the correct form:

"you shouldn't use big words, you don't know how to wield them very well".

this from a "lawyer" who displays the grammatical skills of a fifth grader.:laugh2:

"y'all should learn yerself how to wield them big words gooder"

moron

[Yurt]

thats all you have is a grammar mistake...LOL...i rarely proof my posts and if you can get me on is a grammar mistake, whoopee...i'd rather make a few grammar mistakes than claim to be a man of God and treat people like crap and call them things like "christ killer"

lets all give mfm the "preacher" a round of applause...mr. grammar caught yurt in a grammar mistake :clap:

[red states rule]

thats all you have is a grammar mistake...LOL...i rarely proof my posts and if you can get me on is a grammar mistake, whoopee...i'd rather make a few grammar mistakes than claim to be a man of God and treat people like crap and call them things like "christ killer"

lets all give mfm the "preacher" a round of applause...mr. grammar caught yurt in a grammar mistake :clap:

MFM proves the phrase "Desperate people do desperate things"

By your request Yurt

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Yurt]

MFM proves the phrase "Desperate people do desperate things"

By your request Yurt

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

its true, all he is left with is simple, very common grammar mistakes, whoohoo

[red states rule]

its true, all he is left with is simple, very common grammar mistakes, whoohoo

Lord knows he can't address the issues. He is beaten to bloody pulp when that happens

[retiredman]

thats all you have is a grammar mistake...LOL...i rarely proof my posts and if you can get me on is a grammar mistake, whoopee...i'd rather make a few grammar mistakes than claim to be a man of God and treat people like crap and call them things like "christ killer"

lets all give mfm the "preacher" a round of applause...mr. grammar caught yurt in a grammar mistake :clap:



so...you make a big deal about pwning me in post #40 and that is fine, but when I shove it back up your ass, then all I have is a grammar mistake?

what was the whole "wield" definition thing all about then, "counselor"?

fucking hypocrite.

[red states rule]

so...you make a big deal about pwning me in post #40 and that is fine, but when I shove it back up your ass, then all I have is a grammar mistake?

fucking hypocrite.

Back to your "preacher" side again?

[Yurt]

so...you make a big deal about pwning me in post #40 and that is fine, but when I shove it back up your ass, then all I have is a grammar mistake?

fucking hypocrite.

hahahaaha, deal with it...crybaby...and please, keep your fag talk to yourself and your butt buddies

[retiredman]

Back to your "preacher" side again?

are you of the belief that lay ministers are not allowed to say "fuck"?

trust me. we are.:lol:

[red states rule]

hahahaaha, deal with it...crybaby...and please, keep your fag talk to yourself and your butt buddies

Maybe he is getting his next "sermon" mixed up with his posts this morning :laugh2:

[Yurt]

are you of the belief that lay ministers are not allowed to say "fuck"?

trust me. we are.:lol:


I shove it back up your ass

fag

[red states rule]

are you of the belief that lay ministers are not allowed to say "fuck"?

trust me. we are.:lol:

You use it more often then any Preacher I know

It shows a severe lack of debating skills

[retiredman]

You use it more often then any Preacher I know

It shows a severe lack of debating skills

no...your incessant reliance on cut and paste articles from others shows a severe lack of debating skills!:lol:

[red states rule]

no...your incessant reliance on cut and paste articles from others shows a severe lack of debating skills!:lol:

Libs always demand links, and I know full well your phobia to facts :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Libs always demand links, and I know full well your phobia to facts :laugh2:


you use cut and paste op-eds in lieu of ever writing anything substantial on your own. It is what you have always done. sad.

[red states rule]

you use cut and paste op-eds in lieu of ever writing anything substantial on your own. It is what you have always done. sad.

Translation - Please stop hitting me with facts. I have used the last of my duct tape to keep my head from exploding :laugh2:

[retiredman]

Translation - Please stop hitting me with facts. I have used the last of my duct tape to keep my head from exploding

again.... your continued use of op-eds is laughable, your continued insistence that opinions are somehow facts is even MORE laughable.:lol:

[red states rule]

again.... your continued use of op-eds is laughable, your continued insistence that opinions are somehow facts is even MORE laughable.:lol:

Most here know you are like a fish out of water when the facts hit you in the face

It is like a splash of cold water to you

[retiredman]

Most here know you are like a fish out of water when the facts hit you in the face

It is like a splash of cold water to you

most here know that you can't write so you rely on cutting and pasting the words of others.

[red states rule]

most here know that you can't write so you rely on cutting and pasting the words of others.

It only bugs libs like you who do not want facts to enter the discussion

[retiredman]

It only bugs libs like you who do not want facts to enter the discussion


the key word there is "discussion". If I wanted to have a "discussion" with a conservative op-ed writer, I'd go to my local paper and ask the editorial page editor to lunch. I come to this site to have "discussions" with other members where I express MY opinions in MY own words and they express THEIR opinions in THEIR own words. That is what a "discussion" really is. I could scour the web for liberal editorials and post them in response to your conservative editorials and all we would be doing is having a cutting service duel. I am not interested in that. I think for myself and write for myself. I am not sure if you actually think for yourself, but since you cannot or will not write for yourself, we can never know.

[Yurt]

the key word there is "discussion". If I wanted to have a "discussion" with a conservative op-ed writer, I'd go to my local paper and ask the editorial page editor to lunch. I come to this site to have "discussions" with other members where I express MY opinions in MY own words and they express THEIR opinions in THEIR own words. That is what a "discussion" really is. I could scour the web for liberal editorials and post them in response to your conservative editorials and all we would be doing is having a cutting service duel. I am not interested in that. I think for myself and write for myself. I am not sure if you actually think for yourself, but since you cannot or will not write for yourself, we can never know.

anybody that feels necessary to proclaim that is ..... desperate :laugh2:

i'm smart, and gosh darn it people like me - I.M. Smalley

[red states rule]

anybody that feels necessary to proclaim that is ..... desperate :laugh2:

i'm smart, and gosh darn it people like me - I.M. Smalley

He has been desperate for long time. You, Pale, Glock, me, and others have ripped him to shreads

[retiredman]

anybody that feels necessary to proclaim that is ..... desperate :laugh2:

i'm smart, and gosh darn it people like me - I.M. Smalley

what happened shyster? ambulance got away?

I didn't say anything about people liking me...I said that, unlike your butt buddy RSR, I actually can write.

[red states rule]

what happened shyster? ambulance got away?

I didn't say anything about people liking me...I said that, unlike your butt buddy RSR, I actually can write.

Well if you came here not caring to be liked, you sure came to the right place:lol:

[Yurt]

what happened shyster? ambulance got away?

I didn't say anything about people liking me...I said that, unlike your butt buddy RSR, I actually can write.

ok preacher