You are what you hate [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : You are what you hate

gabosaurus

01-19-2013, 11:04 AM

Thunderknuckles

01-19-2013, 11:41 AM

rebels lining up to obtain weapons, which which they vow to wage jihad against those who dare to oppose their rights.
1776 was a great year :p

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-19-2013, 11:54 AM

Going back to the early days after 9-11, the Hawks of War called for action against the evil Muslims as they allegedly danced in the streets, waving their weapons around and demanding that everyone adhere to their violent philosophies.
You saw all sorts of video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, with which they vowed to wage jihad against those who dared to oppose their message of violent overthrow of non-believing governments.

A decade later, there remains video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, which which they voe to wage jihad against those who dare to oppose their rights. Some want a violent overthrow of non-believers in their government.
Only this jihad is in American cities. The militants are alleged "patriots" who believe no one should have a right to restrict their weapons stashes. Which they believe are necessary to combat others who have weapons stashes.
I can't wait for the "American Spring." Will we become the new Egypt? Which band of lunatics will win out?

THAT'S EVER SO RICH, A LOON DECLARING AMERICAN PATRIOTS TO BE JIHAD MILITANTS
So according to your insanity a patriot defending the Constitution and the nation is the same as Jihad fighter defending a religion!!
In case you haven't noticed ,genius, the New Egypt just declared and made Sharia law the law of the land!!
Christianity has no version of Sharia law ... Sad that you haven't the capability to understand that simple thing..
Only one band of lunatics and from your posts we can see that you are a member in good standing within it's body.

KarlMarx

01-19-2013, 11:55 AM

Going back to the early days after 9-11, the Hawks of War called for action against the evil Muslims as they allegedly danced in the streets, waving their weapons around and demanding that everyone adhere to their violent philosophies.
You saw all sorts of video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, with which they vowed to wage jihad against those who dared to oppose their message of violent overthrow of non-believing governments.

A decade later, there remains video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, which which they voe to wage jihad against those who dare to oppose their rights. Some want a violent overthrow of non-believers in their government.
Only this jihad is in American cities. The militants are alleged "patriots" who believe no one should have a right to restrict their weapons stashes. Which they believe are necessary to combat others who have weapons stashes.
I can't wait for the "American Spring." Will we become the new Egypt? Which band of lunatics will win out?

I think I finally figured it out, i.e., the root of the problem. You, and people who think as you do, when asked the question "Is America a good country" will answer "No" while those of us on this side of the political argument will answer "Yes"... that's the essence of the matter. That's why your side and our side will never be at peace.

Abbey Marie

01-19-2013, 12:02 PM

Going back to the early days after 9-11, the Hawks of War called for action against the evil Muslims as they allegedly danced in the streets, waving their weapons around and demanding that everyone adhere to their violent philosophies.
You saw all sorts of video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, with which they vowed to wage jihad against those who dared to oppose their message of violent overthrow of non-believing governments.

A decade later, there remains video of rebels lining up to obtain weapons, which which they voe to wage jihad against those who dare to oppose their rights. Some want a violent overthrow of non-believers in their government.
Only this jihad is in American cities. The militants are alleged "patriots" who believe no one should have a right to restrict their weapons stashes. Which they believe are necessary to combat others who have weapons stashes.
I can't wait for the "American Spring." Will we become the new Egypt? Which band of lunatics will win out?

Gabby, there really is a big difference between people who want to murderously force the rest of the world to adhere to their religious beliefs, and those who are trying to hold on to the very rights their Constitution already gives them.

jimnyc

01-19-2013, 01:05 PM

Hi, my name is Gabby. :coffee:

red states rule

01-19-2013, 01:09 PM

tailfins

01-19-2013, 01:10 PM

THAT'S EVER SO RICH, A LOON DECLARING AMERICAN PATRIOTS TO BE JIHAD MILITANTS

Nothing original there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWdyf9eSkqQ

gabosaurus

01-20-2013, 01:12 AM

Hi, my name is Gabby. :coffee:

Nah, you have bigger boobs than I do. :cool:

jafar00

01-20-2013, 06:20 AM

fj1200

01-20-2013, 06:32 AM

BTW, you will never be the same as Egypt. The Egyptians changed their govt with their voices, rocks and a few molotovs. No guns needed.

Yes, but not for the better.

taft2012

01-20-2013, 07:43 AM

THAT'S EVER SO RICH, A LOON DECLARING AMERICAN PATRIOTS TO BE JIHAD MILITANTS

I dunno. I can't say for certain I wouldn't saw Gabby's head off. :laugh:

tailfins

01-20-2013, 09:10 AM

ConHog

01-20-2013, 12:26 PM

I dunno. I can't say for certain I wouldn't saw Gabby's head off. :laugh:

That's not even remotely funny my man.

aboutime

01-20-2013, 12:36 PM

One would think Gabby would be in a better mood since her guy won the election. On Monday Gabby should be ecstatic. Gabby will experience multiple, continues Obamagasms and it take at least 10 towels to soak up the wet spots she will leave behind on the furniture

Wonder if Gabby has stock in 'DEPENDS"? Or will use this 4365after listening to the O brag about how wonderful he THINKS he is????

cadet

01-20-2013, 12:37 PM

There is a very strong link between both types of militants. Those taking up arms to defend their religion whether it be the Qur'aan, Bible, or a secular constitution. It's all the same.

BTW, you will never be the same as Egypt. The Egyptians changed their govt with their voices, rocks and a few molotovs. No guns needed.

It also must be said that it doesn't give tourists any comfort to visit your country when all the news coming out is about you all rushing to get bigger arsenals than your neighbours. It all sounds very unsafe and it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Keeping up with the Joneses".

Killing all non-believers, and fighting oppressive gov't systems to help the innocent civilians, are on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
And it kinda was never about defending the constitution. It's more about a big ass plane killed our people, and dammit we're gonna make sure they can't kill any more of us.

Jafar, I''m going to put it simply. I think you think that America is about getting free stuff, shooting stuff, fighting, and fighting Muslims. It's not. America is about giving everyone a chance to change the world for the better. Making it so that everyone is born EQUALLY, and no matter who your parents were, you can grow to the greatest person in america simply by force of will. We want to give that freedom of choice to everyone else in the world. We're not fans of bullies (ie, dictators) and we'll do anything we can to give a better life to a guy who's done nothing but be oppressed. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, whatever. Everyone get's a chance to live the life they want.

That's why we do what we do. Not because of our bible and our guns, but because we care about the little guy (ie, innocent civilians).

Drummond

01-20-2013, 12:45 PM

There is a very strong link between both types of militants. Those taking up arms to defend their religion whether it be the Qur'aan, Bible, or a secular constitution. It's all the same.

BTW, you will never be the same as Egypt. The Egyptians changed their govt with their voices, rocks and a few molotovs. No guns needed.

It also must be said that it doesn't give tourists any comfort to visit your country when all the news coming out is about you all rushing to get bigger arsenals than your neighbours. It all sounds very unsafe and it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Keeping up with the Joneses".

Well, Jafar, I'm a Brit who's walked the streets of New York at night .. and I speak as someone who's visited there several times.

NEVER have I had cause to be concerned for my wellbeing in doing that .. me, a British tourist, neither owning a gun nor having practical experience of handling one.

Can I say the same, say, for the streets of London ? MOSTLY yes .. but not always. Crime in the London borough I grew up in has soared in recent years.

But then, you see, very few British people legally own guns. But some of our criminals own them .. illegally.

We had riots in England a couple of summers ago. Not perpetrated by people with guns, to be sure (.. for the most part). BUT, had those at risk from looting or other violence had easy recourse to personal gun defence ... who would possibly conclude that the rioters would've dared to try their luck, in the face of that ?

By the way, Jafar, I think your attempt to compare law-abiding gun owners with terrorists (.. sorry, 'militants' ..) is disgusting.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-20-2013, 12:48 PM

Killing all non-believers, and fighting oppressive gov't systems to help the innocent civilians, are on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
And it kinda was never about defending the constitution. It's more about a big ass plane killed our people, and dammit we're gonna make sure they can't kill any more of us.

Jafar, I''m going to put it simply. I think you think that America is about getting free stuff, shooting stuff, fighting, and fighting Muslims. It's not. America is about giving everyone a chance to change the world for the better. Making it so that everyone is born EQUALLY, and no matter who your parents were, you can grow to the greatest person in america simply by force of will. We want to give that freedom of choice to everyone else in the world. We're not fans of bullies (ie, dictators) and we'll do anything we can to give a better life to a guy who's done nothing but be oppressed. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, whatever. Everyone get's a chance to live the life they want.

That's why we do what we do. Not because of our bible and our guns, but because we care about the little guy (ie, innocent civilians).

Bravo, and damn well said ..-:beer:--:clap::clap:--Tyr

aboutime

01-20-2013, 12:50 PM

Well, Jafar, I'm a Brit who's walked the streets of New York at night .. and I speak as someone who's visited there several times.

NEVER have I had cause to be concerned for my wellbeing in doing that .. me, a British tourist, neither owning a gun nor having practical experience of handling one.

Can I say the same, say, for the streets of London ? MOSTLY yes .. but not always. Crime in the London borough I grew up in has soared in recent years.

But then, you see, very few British people legally own guns. But some of our criminals own them .. illegally.

We had riots in England a couple of summers ago. Not perpetrated by people with guns, to be sure (.. for the most part). BUT, had those at risk from looting or other violence had easy recourse to personal gun defence ... who would possibly conclude that the rioters would've dared to try their luck, in the face of that ?

By the way, Jafar, I think your attempt to compare law-abiding gun owners with terrorists (.. sorry, 'militants' ..) is disgusting.

Sir Drummond. That is the basis, talent, and agenda for anyone who hates. Always making accusations based on trumped-up, false, self-created facts that keep the terrorist supporters happy, and safe. Safe because they are fearful of being FOUND OUT about how they really believe while appeasing those around them who THREATEN them.
People who display hatred have been trained to hate as a means of ignoring, or pretending they have no hatred for themselves for being DISGUSTING human beings who selfishly, only care for THEMSELVES.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-20-2013, 12:51 PM

Well, Jafar, I'm a Brit who's walked the streets of New York at night .. and I speak as someone who's visited there several times.

NEVER have I had cause to be concerned for my wellbeing in doing that .. me, a British tourist, neither owning a gun nor having practical experience of handling one.

Can I say the same, say, for the streets of London ? MOSTLY yes .. but not always. Crime in the London borough I grew up in has soared in recent years.

But then, you see, very few British people legally own guns. But some of our criminals own them .. illegally.

We had riots in England a couple of summers ago. Not perpetrated by people with guns, to be sure (.. for the most part). BUT, had those at risk from looting or other violence had easy recourse to personal gun defence ... who would possibly conclude that the rioters would've dared to try their luck, in the face of that ?

By the way, Jafar, I think your attempt to compare law-abiding gun owners with terrorists (.. sorry, 'militants' ..) is disgusting.

Right you are D. DISGUSTING, DEVIOUS AND DECEITFUL IMHO.
HE SUPPORTS HAMAS, THEIR GUNS AND THEIR TACTICS BUT NOT LAW ABIDING CITIZENS HERE.
Simply amazing contradictions but hey he is Jafar and he does live in a country that ignorantly turned in their guns! -Tyr

ConHog

01-20-2013, 12:54 PM

Well, Jafar, I'm a Brit who's walked the streets of New York at night .. and I speak as someone who's visited there several times.

NEVER have I had cause to be concerned for my wellbeing in doing that .. me, a British tourist, neither owning a gun nor having practical experience of handling one.

Can I say the same, say, for the streets of London ? MOSTLY yes .. but not always. Crime in the London borough I grew up in has soared in recent years.

But then, you see, very few British people legally own guns. But some of our criminals own them .. illegally.

We had riots in England a couple of summers ago. Not perpetrated by people with guns, to be sure (.. for the most part). BUT, had those at risk from looting or other violence had easy recourse to personal gun defence ... who would possibly conclude that the rioters would've dared to try their luck, in the face of that ?

By the way, Jafar, I think your attempt to compare law-abiding gun owners with terrorists (.. sorry, 'militants' ..) is disgusting.

Don't care about your argument with Jafar, but I seriously doubt you walked the streets of Brooklyn at night, maybe downtown Manhattan LOL

Drummond

01-20-2013, 01:03 PM

Don't care about your argument with Jafar, but I seriously doubt you walked the streets of Brooklyn at night, maybe downtown Manhattan LOL

Here's one post of yours where I can offer agreement. You're correct. I did walk around in Manhattan, not Brooklyn.

Is Manhattan crime-free, then ? And, has it been, since the early Eighties, when I first visited ?

If Brooklyn residents are in need of firearms to defend themselves, I say that no Government should try and curb that right .. not to any degree whatever. Criminals will have those weapons. Decent residents should be able to defend against them. And any Government questioning that, or moving to curb any such freedom HOWEVER indirectly, is one that's turned AGAINST its peoples' best interests.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-20-2013, 01:07 PM

Don't care about your argument with Jafar, but I seriously doubt you walked the streets of Brooklyn at night, maybe downtown Manhattan LOL

I've walked the streets of Memphis at night and in the extremely bad neighborhoods long ago. Lived there with my girlfriend and had a spell with no car for about four months back then. I doubt that Brooklyn at night was any more violent than there. mmffers getting shot all to hell all over the place back then.
If Drummonds states that he did it you can bet your last dime he did. I've never known the man to lie or even to stretch the truth for any reason!

ConHog

01-20-2013, 01:12 PM

I've walked the streets of Memphis at night and in the extremely bad neighborhoods long ago. Lived there with my girlfriend and had a spell with no car for about four months back then. I doubt that Brooklyn at night was any more violent than there. mmffers getting shot all to hell all over the place back then.
If Drummonds states that he did it you can bet your last dime he did. I've never known the man to lie or even to stretch the truth for any reason!

I don't doubt he did, but there are areas in those cities where even the police don't go at night. And certainly the same with Memphis. No you didn't walk in those areas at night. NO ONE would, just as no one would walk into a zoo cage .

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-20-2013, 01:38 PM

I don't doubt he did, but there are areas in those cities where even the police don't go at night. And certainly the same with Memphis. No you didn't walk in those areas at night. NO ONE would, just as no one would walk into a zoo cage .

Yes, I did and I apparently was judged to be left the hell alone. Maybe they thought I was crazy to do such a thing or thought I had a gun and was looking for a gunfight. I had no gun but perhaps crazy may have fit somewhat. I was a bit crazy about taking chances and not giving a damn for at least a decade back then.
Even find myself doing that now although few and far between.

ConHog

01-20-2013, 01:39 PM

Yes, I did and I apparently was judged to be left the hell alone. Maybe they thought I was crazy to do such a thing or thought I had a gun and was looking for a gunfight. I had no gun but perhaps crazy may have fit somewhat. I was a bit crazy about taking chances and not giving a damn for at least a decade back then.
Even find myself doing that now although few and far between.

No you didn't and no you don't , but I'll drop it.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-20-2013, 03:27 PM

No you didn't and no you don't , but I'll drop it.

I see that your amazing insights are still intact and your crystal ball has shown you my entire life too.
Amazing that you have the knowledge to be able to tell me what the hell I did and didnt do!
That's right you have no such knowledge yet chose to call me a liar anyways.
Yea, call me a liar then declare to drop it. Arrogance has you firmly in its grip and nothing will change that.
Cite your justification for declaring I didnt do what I stated... or dont by admitting you shot out a slash with no validity other]
than your own rather vivid imagination. -Tyr

SassyLady

01-21-2013, 02:59 AM

SassyLady

01-21-2013, 03:05 AM

I don't doubt he did, but there are areas in those cities where even the police don't go at night. And certainly the same with Memphis. No you didn't walk in those areas at night. NO ONE would, just as no one would walk into a zoo cage .

Why is that? You would think with all the gun control that NY has people could feel safe walking anywhere, right?

red states rule

01-21-2013, 03:59 AM

Gabby, there really is a big difference between people who want to murderously force the rest of the world to adhere to their religious beliefs, and those who are trying to hold on to the very rights their Constitution already gives them.

Abbey, the biggest difference between conservatives like me and liberals like Gabby is; conservatives believe libs are simply wrong on the issues. Libs like Gabby believe conservatives are hatful. And is difficult to carry on a conversation with someone who already has that predisposed opinion of you

Drummond

01-21-2013, 12:37 PM

I don't doubt he did, but there are areas in those cities where even the police don't go at night. And certainly the same with Memphis. No you didn't walk in those areas at night. NO ONE would, just as no one would walk into a zoo cage .

ConHog, state your proof in support of your assertion that Tyr did NOT walk in Memphis, as he said he did.

... but then, let me assist. YOU CAN PROVIDE NO SUCH PROOF. You know it, I know it, Tyr most certainly knows it !!!

My suggestion: quit trying to be funny. Try (.. as you're such a fan of posts where expressiveness is subject to limitations ??) sticking to opinion, or known fact, or any reasonable combination thereof. And dispense with falsehoods based on preferential assumption.

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot

01-21-2013, 06:29 PM

ConHog, state your proof in support of your assertion that Tyr did NOT walk in Memphis, as he said he did.

... but then, let me assist. YOU CAN PROVIDE NO SUCH PROOF. You know it, I know it, Tyr most certainly knows it !!!

My suggestion: quit trying to be funny. Try (.. as you're such a fan of posts where expressiveness is subject to limitations ??) sticking to opinion, or known fact, or any reasonable combination thereof. And dispense with falsehoods based on preferential assumption.

How civil, he calla me a liar but adds that he will drop it.. Amazing audacity and mind reading ability he has been gifted with along with his ability to see into my past life. And he wonders why people call him on his crap!! -Tyr

bingster

01-21-2013, 08:21 PM

I think I finally figured it out, i.e., the root of the problem. You, and people who think as you do, when asked the question "Is America a good country" will answer "No" while those of us on this side of the political argument will answer "Yes"... that's the essence of the matter. That's why your side and our side will never be at peace.

No, actually, it's people who are closed minded and uncompromising like you seem to be who damage this country. Our near perfect union needs improvement. The conservatives want to go back to a time when our nation was even more imperfect. Move forward or die. Even a business man knows that one.

I liked his comparison because he was calling out the conservative panic squad "wolf" calling conspiracy nuts. Well informed, intelligent people can have reasonable discourse without losing your minds-like the "jihadists" do.

jimnyc

01-21-2013, 08:26 PM

No, actually, it's people who are closed minded and uncompromising like you seem to be who damage this country. Our near perfect union needs improvement. The conservatives want to go back to a time when our nation was even more imperfect. Move forward or die. Even a business man knows that one.

I liked his comparison because he was calling out the conservative panic squad "wolf" calling conspiracy nuts. Well informed, intelligent people can have reasonable discourse without losing your minds-like the "jihadists" do.

So you disagree with what Conservatives would want for this country, and then make your comments above based on that. But in the same breath you accuse others of being close minded and uncompromising?

bingster

01-21-2013, 08:29 PM

Killing all non-believers, and fighting oppressive gov't systems to help the innocent civilians, are on the opposite sides of the spectrum.
And it kinda was never about defending the constitution. It's more about a big ass plane killed our people, and dammit we're gonna make sure they can't kill any more of us.

Jafar, I''m going to put it simply. I think you think that America is about getting free stuff, shooting stuff, fighting, and fighting Muslims. It's not. America is about giving everyone a chance to change the world for the better. Making it so that everyone is born EQUALLY, and no matter who your parents were, you can grow to the greatest person in america simply by force of will. We want to give that freedom of choice to everyone else in the world. We're not fans of bullies (ie, dictators) and we'll do anything we can to give a better life to a guy who's done nothing but be oppressed. Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Atheist, Buddhist, whatever. Everyone get's a chance to live the life they want.

That's why we do what we do. Not because of our bible and our guns, but because we care about the little guy (ie, innocent civilians).

I believe that is our intent, but tell that to the 60,000 Iraqi Civilians who died in the Iraq war. Osama Bin Laden was very greatful we did that.

bingster

01-21-2013, 08:31 PM

So you disagree with what Conservatives would want for this country, and then make your comments above based on that. But in the same breath you accuse others of being close minded and uncompromising?

Fair point. I made that post too fast.

jimnyc

01-21-2013, 08:51 PM

Fair point. I made that post too fast.

I like the fact that you're good enough to admit when you spoke like that, or man enough to admit when the other member makes a valid point. :beer:

bingster

01-21-2013, 09:17 PM

Although, I admit, I too quickly agreed with our British friend’s post, I would like to push the tasteless comparison aside and instead, talk about a difference.

I think our tourist will agree that in the last four years there has been a stark difference in rhetoric between the Democrats and Republicans. One side has always been calm and measured, while the other has often been border-line hysteric. The hysterical ones call us “liberals” while they claim the position of “patriot”. After all, according to the patriots, there really are only two political parties: Democrats and Americans.

I’ve been watching politics my whole life and I don’t remember more members of a party calling the opposition un-american, let alone accusing the president of not even being a citizen. Has anyone ever seen a birth certificate of another American president? I haven’t, and I’ve seen two versions of Obama’s.
We had tea partiers shouting down town hall meetings-stopping democracy. Some proudly brought their assault weapons to others. Rocks were thrown through DNC windows as a loud minority spoke out. Posters of Obama in white face and Obama with a Hitler mustache bounced up and down in the streets for these “grassroots” protests. How they got the same posters in numerous different protests at the same time if the movement was truly grassroots is another issue. “Keep you government hands off of my Medicare” they screamed. Sharon Engal spoke of 2nd Amendment remedies. Even Gabby Giffords spoke out against the incendiary rhetoric and mood of the country. She doesn’t speak so well now.
After Obama’s second election, he was called despot, monarch, and king. He was compared to Hitler and Stalin. Is Tom Clancy the only Republican who knows history? Hitler and Stalin didn’t have fair elections and polls advising them what to do, and Obama isn’t trying to do what conservatives are accusing him of. He sure, as hell, isn’t doing anything that can competently be compared to Hitler or Stalin-you know they were mass murderers, don’t you?
Thousands of patriots are so patriotic they don’t want to be Americans anymore! You call us un-American?!!! So, you don’t get your way in an election, so you go out and buy a bunch of guns and secede from the nation. Liberals are constantly accused of being elite. Taking in account your party’s actions over the last four years, a third grader is elite.

bingster

01-21-2013, 09:35 PM

I supported his original post because I thought he was a making a similar point that I made on another thread regarding Islam. Yes, I read it too fast and responded too fast. There's Islamic and there's Al Qaeda. There's Christian and there's Klu Klux Klan. There's Republicans and there's Tea Partiers. A stark difference (not the only, don't misunderstand) between the three comparisons is that the Republicans don't call out their crazies, they support them-One exception that comes to mind is Chris Christy.

fj1200

01-21-2013, 09:41 PM

ConHog

01-21-2013, 09:45 PM

You know, one could make the exact same argument about liberals... and be more correct IMO.

Or more correctly you could just attribute the statement as being true about stupid assholes and conclude that neither liberals nor conservatives have a stranglehold on that group.

fj1200

01-21-2013, 10:08 PM

Or more correctly you could just attribute the statement as being true about stupid assholes and conclude that neither liberals nor conservatives have a stranglehold on that group.

Or we could just call it a stupid statement full of platitudinous blather. :)

ConHog

01-21-2013, 10:15 PM

Or we could just call it a stupid statement full of platitudinous blather. :)

otherwise known as

SSDD?

fj1200

01-21-2013, 10:17 PM

otherwise known as

SSDD?

No. DSSD. ;)

Drummond

01-21-2013, 10:19 PM

I think our tourist will agree that in the last four years there has been a stark difference in rhetoric between the Democrats and Republicans. One side has always been calm and measured, while the other has often been border-line hysteric. The hysterical ones call us “liberals” while they claim the position of “patriot”. After all, according to the patriots, there really are only two political parties: Democrats and Americans.

I suggest that what you're characterising is receiving an incomplete examination. Now .. I'm in some small difficulty in answering, because I question whether I'm in a proper position to accurately judge the various nuances that may be in play.

But it seems to me that Obama is easily the most Left-wing President you've ever had, and there will be American patriots who will have a feeling, a concept of identity if you will, with what the founders of America always intended America to be. Try measuring this against what Obama's getting up to ... a massive national debt, getting bigger daily, with Obama shaking the foreign money tree just as vigorously as he can. 'ObamaCare', which is a fledgling beginning towards full State control of healthcare - if we're being honest about it - which came close to bankrupting the UK when it was first introduced here. Our NHS is one of the largest employers on the planet. One serving six times the size of the UK population undoubtedly WOULD be THE largest ... robbing resources from clear across the planet, costing you staggering sums every year. And for what ... a FIRST CLASS system, which WE haven't managed to build in GENERATIONS of trying ???

There are other ways to criticise Obama .. his globalist agenda, his meekness towards enemies, his subversion of any Christian grounding America started out with ...

Now, you tell me. Aren't decent Conservative patriots entitled to MIND any of this .. ???

I’ve been watching politics my whole life and I don’t remember more members of a party calling the opposition un-american, let alone accusing the president of not even being a citizen. Has anyone ever seen a birth certificate of another American president? I haven’t, and I’ve seen two versions of Obama’s.

Ah, but have you ALSO ever seen a President fight so hard to keep the whole issue under wraps, as this current one did, for years ??

We had tea partiers shouting down town hall meetings-stopping democracy. Some proudly brought their assault weapons to others. Rocks were thrown through DNC windows as a loud minority spoke out. Posters of Obama in white face and Obama with a Hitler mustache bounced up and down in the streets for these “grassroots” protests. How they got the same posters in numerous different protests at the same time if the movement was truly grassroots is another issue. “Keep you government hands off of my Medicare” they screamed. Sharon Engal spoke of 2nd Amendment remedies. Even Gabby Giffords spoke out against the incendiary rhetoric and mood of the country. She doesn’t speak so well now.

When those in power go further than any have, ever before, to change all that America is ... well, what do you expect, other than to see people react against it ??

After Obama’s second election, he was called despot, monarch, and king. He was compared to Hitler and Stalin.

Though I can't judge this with a detailed eye ... doesn't at least some of that come from Obama choosing to apply 'executive powers' more extensively and sweepingly than his predecessors ?

Thousands of patriots are so patriotic they don’t want to be Americans anymore! You call us un-American?!!! So, you don’t get your way in an election, so you go out and buy a bunch of guns and secede from the nation. Liberals are constantly accused of being elite. Taking in account your party’s actions over the last four years, a third grader is elite.

Perhaps they consider that they're presiding over the death of a country's identity, its principles, that made it the America they formerly recognised ? Will you REALLY tell me that they have no right to MIND ?

If I'm right ... let others here say so. I invite such responses.

ConHog

01-21-2013, 10:19 PM

No. DSSD. ;)

I guess that's a matter of perspective.

fj1200

01-21-2013, 10:20 PM

No, actually, it's people who are closed minded and uncompromising like you seem to be who damage this country. Our near perfect union needs improvement. The conservatives want to go back to a time when our nation was even more imperfect. Move forward or die. Even a business man knows that one.

A better response hopefully. A more perfect union is one that grants more freedoms to more people IMO and the tack that's been taken for quite some time, and more dramatically here of late, has been to limit freedoms of more and more. That's not moving forward.

ConHog

01-21-2013, 10:25 PM

Ah, but have you ALSO ever seen a President fight so hard to keep the whole issue under wraps, as this current one did, for years ??

Forgive the cut, but this was really all I wanted to respond to.

Clinton sure didn't just come out and admit to Monica
Reagan sure hid Iran-Contra
Nixon hid Watergate

etc etc. Of course Presidents attempt to keep their dirty little secrets, well secret.

Drummond

01-21-2013, 10:37 PM

Forgive the cut, but this was really all I wanted to respond to.

Clinton sure didn't just come out and admit to Monica
Reagan sure hid Iran-Contra
Nixon hid Watergate

etc etc. Of course Presidents attempt to keep their dirty little secrets, well secret.

Well, I believe you've taken the comment you base your answer on out of context. Can't say that I'm exactly surprised at that ... but, that said .. Ok, you make fair points. As far as they go, anyway.

There's more to consider where Obama's concerned, though. What you have in Obama is the sort of Leftie I can recognise from my part of the world. One arrogant enough, subversive enough, to work in pursuance of an agenda which, in its application, amounts to social engineering. He wants America's values to change. He wants a greater dependence culture. He wants a hefty, bloated, all-controlling Government machine that intrudes into peoples' lives, re-engineering their expectations of life as HE sees fit.

Does THIS resemble the America that YOUR ancestors fought MY ancestors to create, and have thrive ?

YOU tell ME.

Little wonder, it seems to me, that there are many people out there who've strong objections to give voice to !!!

ConHog

01-21-2013, 10:43 PM

Well, I believe you've taken the comment you base your answer on out of context. That said .. Ok, you make fair points. As far as they go, anyway.

There's more to consider where Obama's concerned, though. What you have in Obama is the sort of Leftie I can recognise from my part of the world. One arrogant enough, subversive enough, to work in pursuance of an agenda which, in its application, amounts to social engineering. He wants America's values to change. He wants a greater dependence culture. He wants a hefty, bloated, all-controlling Government machine that intrudes into peoples' lives, re-engineering their expectations of life as HE sees fit.

Does THIS resemble the America that YOUR ancestors fought MY ancestors to create, and have thrive ?

YOU tell ME.

Little wonder, it seems to me, that there are many people out there who've strong objections to give voice to !!!

My argument isn't that Obama isn't a piece of shit. My argument is that his political leanings do not make him any more of a piece of shit than past Presidents.

The last President who actually gave a shit about the people he served was Abraham Lincoln, and his wife robbed the government blind.

They are all scum, just in varying flavors.

Drummond

01-21-2013, 10:54 PM

My argument isn't that Obama isn't a piece of shit. My argument is that his political leanings do not make him any more of a piece of shit than past Presidents.

But this is where we disagree. Obama is more radical than your past Presidents, way more dedicated to changing the nature of American society than his predecessors.

Other Presidents had episodes of disreputability that came out of self-serving interests. The examples you cited address the truth of that. But, THIS one wants to change the social landscape in such a way that he'll end up changing its very soul. If he had the fullest freedom to do exactly as he wanted, you'd have the same creaking, 2nd class healthcare we have. The same withdrawal of life-saving treatments we have, denied to patients on ground of cost, with all humanity removed from the system.

You'd have a dependence culture where the spirit of enterprise was dying or dead.

You'd have an impoverished nation, unable to maintain its leading position in the world. Unable to defend itself, proactively as it has before now, against aggressors. A nation unable even to discern something as basic as the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. A nation losing its claim to identify with Christian values.

Yes, ConHog. Patriots have a right to object to ANY and ALL of this !!!

ConHog

01-21-2013, 11:04 PM

But this is where we disagree. Obama is more radical than your past Presidents, way more dedicated to changing the nature of American society than his predecessors.

Other Presidents had episodes of disreputability that came out of self-serving interests. The examples you cited address the truth of that. But, THIS one wants to change the social landscape in such a way that he'll end up changing its very soul. If he had the fullest freedom to do exactly as he wanted, you'd have the same creaking, 2nd class healthcare we have. The same withdrawal of life-saving treatments we have, denied to patients on ground of cost, with all humanity removed from the system.

You'd have a dependence culture where the spirit of enterprise was dying or dead.

You'd have an impoverished nation, unable to maintain its leading position in the world. Unable to defend itself, proactively as it has before now, against aggressors. A nation unable even to discern something as basic as the sanctity of marriage between man and woman. A nation losing its claim to identify with Christian values.

Yes, ConHog. Patriots have a right to object to ANY and ALL of this !!!

My friend, I happen to believe that LBJ had a man killed so that he could be put into a position to escalate a war which made his wife's family rich.

I think BOOSH started a massive war to make his friends at Haliburton even richer.

I won't list more examples, but they are there.

You are naive if you believe that any person takes the job of President of the United States for some noble purpose. A noble person would be torn to shreds long before they could be elected.

Do I agree with Obama's politics? Hell no. Do I think he's sincere in his beliefs? Yes. Do I think the country is his top priority? No

Now if you ask me those questions about the last 8 presidents, at least, the only answer that is likely to vary is to question 1.

He's a man, no better and no worse than any other.

Marcus Aurelius

01-22-2013, 09:30 AM

There is a very strong link between both types of militants. Those taking up arms to defend their religion whether it be the Qur'aan, Bible, or a secular constitution. It's all the same.

BTW, you will never be the same as Egypt. The Egyptians changed their govt with their voices, rocks and a few molotovs. No guns needed.

It also must be said that it doesn't give tourists any comfort to visit your country when all the news coming out is about you all rushing to get bigger arsenals than your neighbours. It all sounds very unsafe and it brings a whole new meaning to the phrase "Keeping up with the Joneses".
why do you continually lie on this point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Egyptian_revolut ion_under_Hosni_Mubarak%27s_rule

January 27: Some Suez and Sinai region protesters armed themselves with guns leading to violent conflicts.

January 29: A police station was torched after protesters seized weapons stored inside before telling officers to get out.

Feb 2: Gunfire was reported to be heard in Tahrir Square... During the night of 1–2 February, Mubarak supporters and protesters clashed in Alexandria, where shots were reportedly fired into the air

Feb 4: Ahmad Mohamed Mahmoud of Al-Ta'awun became the first journalist to die covering the protests,[189] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011%E2%80%932012_Egyptian_revolut ion_under_Hosni_Mubarak%27s_rule#cite_note-189) from gunshot wounds sustained on 28 January.

Feb 5: Early in the morning shots were fired as protesters said pro-Mubarak activists tried to assault the square.

Feb 6: However, gunfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot) was heard in the early hours of the day in Cairo.

Feb 11: In Arish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arish), in north Sinai, the second police station in 24 hours came under heavy arms fire—including RPGs—in which at least one protester was killed and 20 injured, with possibly more police fatalities. LINK: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=281707

tailfins

01-22-2013, 09:42 AM

My argument isn't that Obama isn't a piece of shit. My argument is that his political leanings do not make him any more of a piece of shit than past Presidents.

The last President who actually gave a shit about the people he served was Abraham Lincoln, and his wife robbed the government blind.

They are all scum, just in varying flavors.

When your political leanings get you the support of Hugo Chavez, you have a problem.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 11:09 AM

When your political leanings get you the support of Hugo Chavez, you have a problem.

In as far as political leanings go? I agree. In as far as being a piece of shit ? I disagree.

mundame

01-22-2013, 11:49 AM

But it seems to me that Obama is easily the most Left-wing President you've ever had,

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were also very leftist; I wouldn't necessarily say that Obama has succeeded in being more left than they; he might try if he could, but the Republican House and the divided Senate iare holding him back.

Perhaps they consider that they're presiding over the death of a country's identity, its principles, that made it the America they formerly recognised ? Will you REALLY tell me that they have no right to MIND ?

If I'm right ... let others here say so. I invite such responses.

The country is splitting up, that's all. Usual thing in history, everywhere. Since 9/11 we've no longer been united. Britain has had so many rebellions and revolutions and split-ups and reformings and they are still going on -- Ireland and Scotland -- so I would think you would be more used to all this ferment than we are. The atmosphere in this country is like it was about 1855, before the Civil War. Then the issues were slavery and Mormonism (people now don't realize that, but the problem of Mormonism was huge then, and unfixable, like abortion is now). Now the big issues that exercise the whole nation night and day, IMO, are first gun control, which connects with the black problem (that slavery thing never really got solved) and crime generally, and abortion and role of women, which like Mormonism in 1855, isn't really going to be solved.

Drummond

01-22-2013, 12:52 PM

My friend

You think so ?

... I happen to believe that LBJ had a man killed so that he could be put into a position to escalate a war which made his wife's family rich.

I think BOOSH started a massive war to make his friends at Haliburton even richer.

I won't list more examples, but they are there.

Er'm, I think that this is a big enough list as it is ...

ConHog, this lot reads like classic conspiracy theory material. If you think you can back any of it up, give it a try ... but rather carefully, it seems to me ...

The LBJ suggestion is a new one on me. I don't even understand how such a scenario could've possibly worked out.

The so-called 'Boosh' one is, I have to say, too ludicrous by far. To make THAT one work, you'd have to presuppose that Bush :-

1. Arranged the 9/11 attack, so that the whole 'War on Terror' effort could be explained away as a reasonable action (or rather, REaction).

2. Arranged all of the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and further (.. presumably ..) masterminded the Taliban's support of their existence in Afghanistan. Same reasoning as previously, since without credible enemies stacking up, the War on Terror would be too flimsy an excuse to sustain, much less act upon.

3. Further arranged for Saddam to be the ultimate 'fall guy' .. and HOW ? How could he have arranged for Saddam's intransigence on the WMD issue, lasting over a decade ? How could he have persuaded Saddam to keep in line with that, even when threatening him with military consequences for doing JUST THAT ?

ConHog, did you post your suggestions as a joke ?

You are naive if you believe that any person takes the job of President of the United States for some noble purpose. A noble person would be torn to shreds long before they could be elected.

Seems to me that the LESS noble a candidate, the greater amount of mud could be slung his way ! Now, maybe none of that guarantees the integrity of any one candidate. But to suppose that they're ALL shady characters is taking it too far.

Ronald Reagan is surely one example of a fundamentally decent President (I don't suggest he was perfect, just a particularly good leader to have). Partnered with Margaret Thatcher, they made a brilliant team.

Do I agree with Obama's politics? Hell no.

Well done.

Do I think he's sincere in his beliefs? Yes.

Given the context that he sincerely believes he has a 'right' to subvert America into a dysfunctional perversity of its former self .. I agree. He is.

Do I think the country is his top priority? No

Its welfare ... certainly not. The country as a whipping-post for vandalistic intentions and agendas ... OH YES, IT IS ...

Drummond

01-22-2013, 12:55 PM

When your political leanings get you the support of Hugo Chavez, you have a problem.:clap::clap:

Spot on !

Drummond

01-22-2013, 01:14 PM

Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were also very leftist; I wouldn't necessarily say that Obama has succeeded in being more left than they; he might try if he could, but the Republican House and the divided Senate are holding him back.

I can't claim to be 'expert' on American Presidents, especially going back that far. However, I do know that Woodrow Wilson was very in favour of segregationist policies that today would be branded racist without the slightest hesitation. Given the currently-perceived so-called 'bona fides' of the American Left in claiming any decent representation of Black Americans, and considering Lincoln's own integrity on the matter as made clear the generation BEFORE Wilson .. the irony is plain to see .. surely ?

The country is splitting up, that's all. Usual thing in history, everywhere. Since 9/11 we've no longer been united.

Courtesy of trouble fomented by the Left ?

Britain has had so many rebellions and revolutions and split-ups and reformings and they are still going on -- Ireland and Scotland -- so I would think you would be more used to all this ferment than we are.

Perhaps. And yes, we have our share of Leftie rabble-rousers, too. Though current affairs don't support citing Ireland, surely ? What current trouble exists comes from the desire of the people to consistently identify WITH the UK as a single entity.

The atmosphere in this country is like it was about 1855, before the Civil War. Then the issues were slavery and Mormonism (people now don't realize that, but the problem of Mormonism was huge then, and unfixable, like abortion is now). Now the big issues that exercise the whole nation night and day, IMO, are first gun control, which connects with the black problem (that slavery thing never really got solved) and crime generally, and abortion and role of women, which like Mormonism in 1855, isn't really going to be solved.

You'll need to explain the supposed link between gun control and 'the black problem' further ... I don't understand your meaning. Current gun control moves come from the Adam Lanza shootings .. and was he black ?

Are you saying that Obama is pushing for greater controls because of his skin colour ? Or, that gun crime in the US originates from those of a particular skin colour ?!?

As for abortion and Mormonism .. isn't this what your country gets for moving away from its foundling Christian roots ? And, what force in America is driving that ?

Why ... THE LEFT, but of course.

mundame

01-22-2013, 01:39 PM

Courtesy of trouble fomented by the Left ?

I would say so, of course; the left says it's our fault. The bottom line is this is now a country deeply divided, since about 12-13 years ago, at least. This happens. Consider France, 1785.

Perhaps. And yes, we have our share of Leftie rabble-rousers, too. Though current affairs don't support citing Ireland, surely ? What current trouble exists comes from the desire of the people to consistently identify WITH the UK as a single entity.

I am taking the long view. Ireland has been a unity trouble spot for....oh.....since 800? Awhile now. Off and on. Yes, well, us too: when every state in the union has submitted a secession petition, that union is probably in trouble.

You'll need to explain the supposed link between gun control and 'the black problem' further ... I don't understand your meaning. Current gun control moves come from the Adam Lanza shootings .. and was he black ?

Oh, dear. I'm betting every person on this list EXCEPT the foreigners understand me very well. However, yes, the current problem is a white-on-white problem, in general. That's why it's a big issue. The black shootings are mostly other blacks and are restricted to ghetto areas in the cities. They seem to like shooting each other, like Iraqis blowing each other up, and we let them get on with it; there's no stopping it, anyway.

Are you saying that Obama is pushing for greater controls because of his skin colour ? Or, that gun crime in the US originates from those of a particular skin colour ?!?

Noooo.....though your first point is rather a provocative question. I find I want to think about that. It hadn't occurred to me before.

As for abortion and Mormonism .. isn't this what your country gets for moving away from its foundling Christian roots ? And, what force in America is driving that ?

Why ... THE LEFT, but of course.

You are correct IMO that a lot of problems are due to the left. Those are not two of them, however. Abortion is an issue of greatly improved technology. Mormonism started in the 1830s, and is if anything a rather rightwing movement. Neither issue is about left or right, IMO, basically, but it is true antiabortionism tends to be right and pro-choice tends to be left. The truth is, however, that when they get in trouble, everyone gets an abortion regardless of political posture. Catholics, everyone.

Abortion is a strange issue in that it's a personal freedom issue that the left actually FAVORS. And the right is against. That's because rightwing men want more control over women than they have at this time, I assume. It's become a symbol for how little control men have over women anymore. That, of course, is a left-right issue, feminism.

Drummond

01-22-2013, 01:59 PM

Thank you, Mundame. Some good answers, and I'll give them some thought.

As for gun control and Obama's interest because of his skin colour ... that was more of a feeble joke than anything. No, I simply think that Obama is looking for excuses to further a Left-wing agenda. Disempowering the individual citizen is central to the Left-wing vision of ensuring that people look to their authorities for all their needs, and making people as dependent as possible on the State is classic Leftie methodology / psychology.

Obama will absolutely hate presiding over a population 'uppity' enough to consider itself empowered in any way. All Left-wing control freaks would think in such terms, and Obama's no different. My guess is that he casts an envious eye on all that the Left has done on our side of the Pond, and thinks to himself .. 'Ah, an NHS free at point of treatment, even if the quality of treatment is frequently fair to middling, and occasionally total crap ... and precious few people own a gun, needing to depend for their security on lacklustre policing .. We Really Must Get That Instituted Here .. heyy, it's a Socialist Paradise in the UK !!!!!'

tailfins

01-22-2013, 02:04 PM

Drummond

01-22-2013, 02:31 PM

So what you're saying is that firearms are a fail-safe for incompetent police, right?

Not really, no.

I'm saying three things, I think.

1. Self-defence, and what you do for yourself in order to defend yourself and your loved ones, should be an inalienable right, which no State machine should have ANY right to chip away at.

2. Your point holds water if one infers that the police can be everywhere at all times .. but of course, that's just a nonsense. No imaginable system could ever come into being to allow this to happen, not outside of the strictest, most oppressive Police State setup possible, anyway, reminiscent of something Orwellian or Stalinist. So ... if some innocent citizen encounters a homicidal nutter AND is incapable of getting immediate help, what's the citizen to do ? Just become a victim, maybe a needlessly KILLED victim, in order to satisfy a Left-wing control-freak agenda ?

3. There are occasions - rare, but they DO happen - when, no matter how competent the police are, they cannot be expected to cope ALL of the time. The rioting England suffered in 2010 is a case in point. With most citizens armed, the incidence of rioting would've been much reduced, perhaps stopped entirely. As it was, small businesses were at the mercy of determined looters and mobs, with police too small in numbers to cope with it all (and remember, such is the paranoia about gun-wielding over here, most of our policemen can't carry firearms, either !!!).

Strict gun control is craziness. It should be resisted, without a doubt. OK ... if it can be done, do what you can to weed out the 'crazies' from ordinary law-abiding people. BUT, don't make EVERYONE pay for the excesses of an unrepresentative few !!

ConHog

01-22-2013, 02:36 PM

You think so ?

Er'm, I think that this is a big enough list as it is ...

ConHog, this lot reads like classic conspiracy theory material. If you think you can back any of it up, give it a try ... but rather carefully, it seems to me ...

The LBJ suggestion is a new one on me. I don't even understand how such a scenario could've possibly worked out.

The so-called 'Boosh' one is, I have to say, too ludicrous by far. To make THAT one work, you'd have to presuppose that Bush :-

1. Arranged the 9/11 attack, so that the whole 'War on Terror' effort could be explained away as a reasonable action (or rather, REaction).

2. Arranged all of the Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and further (.. presumably ..) masterminded the Taliban's support of their existence in Afghanistan. Same reasoning as previously, since without credible enemies stacking up, the War on Terror would be too flimsy an excuse to sustain, much less act upon.

3. Further arranged for Saddam to be the ultimate 'fall guy' .. and HOW ? How could he have arranged for Saddam's intransigence on the WMD issue, lasting over a decade ? How could he have persuaded Saddam to keep in line with that, even when threatening him with military consequences for doing JUST THAT ?

ConHog, did you post your suggestions as a joke ?

Seems to me that the LESS noble a candidate, the greater amount of mud could be slung his way ! Now, maybe none of that guarantees the integrity of any one candidate. But to suppose that they're ALL shady characters is taking it too far.

Ronald Reagan is surely one example of a fundamentally decent President (I don't suggest he was perfect, just a particularly good leader to have). Partnered with Margaret Thatcher, they made a brilliant team.

Well done.

Given the context that he sincerely believes he has a 'right' to subvert America into a dysfunctional perversity of its former self .. I agree. He is.

Its welfare ... certainly not. The country as a whipping-post for vandalistic intentions and agendas ... OH YES, IT IS ...

My Master's Thesis was on LBJ's role in the death of JFK, I am utterly convinced that he orchestrated it. This however isn't the appropriate thread for such.

Just say there is lots of credible evidence to suggest the possibility.

Drummond

01-22-2013, 02:42 PM

My Master's Thesis was on LBJ's role in the death of JFK, I am utterly convinced that he orchestrated it. This however isn't the appropriate thread for such.

Just say there is lots of credible evidence to suggest the possibility.

Your just assuring us that this 'credible evidence' exists in abundance doesn't prove the point. If you can make your case, though, why not go for it ? Perhaps a thread dedicated to the proposition ... and test this out ?

Abbey Marie

01-22-2013, 05:12 PM

Abbey Marie

01-22-2013, 05:13 PM

ConHog

01-22-2013, 05:17 PM

Your just assuring us that this 'credible evidence' exists in abundance doesn't prove the point. If you can make your case, though, why not go for it ? Perhaps a thread dedicated to the proposition ... and test this out ?

Drummond I have a Master's Degree in History from the University of Arkansas, I wrote my Thesis on the very subject. I'd be happy to discuss it with you sometime. I may not convince you that I am right, but I would certainly make you say "wow, maybe........." if you were truly open minded about it.

mundame

01-22-2013, 05:21 PM

Interesting. My husband thinks the same thing.

People have long suspected that and I read recently that Jackie Kennedy believed it almost immediately; before she even moved out of the White House she believed that Johnson was behind the killing.

I don't go that way, though I haven't read the evidence and am NO fan of that idiot Lyndon who did a whole lot of harm to this country, IMO.

Back in the day, U.S. News and World Report calmly asserted, with evidence given, that it was Castro: Oswald working for Castro. There is certainly plenty of evidence for that! Oswald going to Mexico to visit the Cuban Embassy, for instance. Because of all the several assassination attempts Kennedy had the CIA make against Castro, all failed. Really dumb stuff, poisoned cigars, poisoned wet suit for diving, etc. But it made Castro mad, and he got even. I have believed that ever since.

ConHog

01-22-2013, 05:23 PM

People have long suspected that and I read recently that Jackie Kennedy believed it almost immediately; before she even moved out of the White House she believed that Johnson was behind the killing.

I don't go that way, though I haven't read the evidence and am NO fan of that idiot Lyndon who did a whole lot of harm to this country, IMO.

Back in the day, U.S. News and World Report calmly asserted, with evidence given, that it was Castro: Oswald working for Castro. There is certainly plenty of evidence for that! Oswald going to Mexico to visit the Cuban Embassy, for instance. Because of all the several assassination attempts Kennedy had the CIA make against Castro, all failed. Really dumb stuff, poisoned cigars, poisoned wet suit for diving, etc. But it made Castro mad, and he got even. I have believed that ever since.

Quite true about Jackie O.

Drummond

01-22-2013, 09:33 PM

Drummond I have a Master's Degree in History from the University of Arkansas, I wrote my Thesis on the very subject. I'd be happy to discuss it with you sometime. I may not convince you that I am right, but I would certainly make you say "wow, maybe........." if you were truly open minded about it.

Well, in that case, aren't you making a case for saying there's plenty to base a new thread on ?

Why not give the subject, your thoughts on it, an airing ? See what the forum members make of it, test out opinions, reactions. See whether they find your conclusions, and what should be a wealth of material (.. if you have enough to build such a thesis, this should surely be true ?) credible.

Let's put some meat on those bare bones. Go for it ....

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 09:43 PM

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:47 PM

Not 'calling you out', just asking, what was the title of your thesis?

LBJ: The man behind the shooter

avatar4321

01-22-2013, 09:48 PM

You are what you hate?

Then I hate men who are extremely athletic, flexible, and have a six pack, who just happen to also be geniuses and extremely virile and who have lots of money.

hmmmm... Im still me.

Conclusion: Your claim is incorrect.

Kathianne

01-22-2013, 09:51 PM

LBJ: The man behind the shooter

How many disagree with you, besides the US government?

ConHog

01-22-2013, 09:55 PM

How many disagree with you, besides the US government?

LOL quite a handful. And many agree.