[Guy_Fawkes]

djakeydd wrote:

Blah blah foiler bullshit blah blah.. that was founded on the principles of the Christian Bible, rabble rabble rabble.."

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

Please someone, tell me..

Complete Bullshit!

[ridenrain]

Akhenaten wrote:

Ridenrain wrote:

I don't recall any Republicans citing chairman Mao as their inspiration.

I recall a few stating "God was their inspiration" and that's easily as stupid.

Where's the re-arrangement? Where's the mis-direction?
Face it. People don't like it when a hack cites Mao as their inspiration.

As for Afghanistan, I didn't qualify where you got it because I've seen none of that.
I have shown some of the things that support my belief that Obama WILL cut & run in Afghnaistan.

I'm not asking for proof.. I;m just asking where you got the idea that the Republicans want to cut & run in Afghanistan.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

Where's the re-arrangement? Where's the mis-direction?

Well it starts with shit like this:

Quote:

Face it. People don't like it when a hack cites Mao as their inspiration.

Never said they do. Please point out where I did, or admit that you have no sincere intention of honestly replying to anything I say but rather to what you wish I said. Might as well be arguing with yourself.

...and since you won't admit to it then I guess I gotta post it again and again and again and again for 40 pages until you either admit what you already know or drop it:

Riden: "I don't recall any Republicans citing chairman Mao as their inspiration."

Akhenaten: "I recall a few stating "God was their inspiration" and that's easily as stupid."

Riden: "So you are equating god to Mao?"



Saying that quoting God as inspiration (or instruction) is easily as stupid as stating mao is your inspiration (or instruction), does not mean "God=Mao". Admit it. That's a re-arrangement riden, no two shits about it. Naturally you can post back till the Second Coming that "No it isn't", but just as 1=1, Yes it is.

[N_Fiddledog]

I don't know how important Mao quoters are to this argument, but the part that says Republicans are saying no on Afghanistan is just unsupportable.

At present one of the big bitches you hear coming from the Repubs is Obama won't listen to his top commander General McChrystal who wants more troops.

Quote:

Palin, on what U.S. goals in Afghanistan should be: "To listen to McChrystal, to listen to the appointee that President Obama asked for, the advice from McChrystal gave the president advice and said, 'We need the essentially a surge strategy in Afghanistan so we can win in Afghanistan.' That means more resources, more troops there. It frustrates me and frightens me and many Americans that President Obama is dithering around with the decision in Afghanistan."

http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.co ... _d_673.php

I also would be interested in knowing where that claim of anti-Afghanistan Republicans came from. What? Is there some RINO, Dede Scozzafava type out there who made some comment, or something?

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

but the part that says Republicans are saying no on Afghanistan is just unsupportable.

A clarification was made on that. I'm not going to repeat it every time someone reads one post, or one part of a post and then ignores the rest of the stream of thought.

[BeaverFever]

Im so sick of these "obamas a muslim" threads, its nothing other than trolling by batshit looney-tunes.

[Akhenaten]

BeaverFever wrote:

Im so sick of these "obamas a muslim" threads, its nothing other than trolling by batshit looney-tunes.

The healthcare debates get almost as looney but at least that's a subject matter, a proposal, a system to be enacted and therefore debated.

[N_Fiddledog]

Akhenaten wrote:

Quote:

but the part that says Republicans are saying no on Afghanistan is just unsupportable.

A clarification was made on that. I'm not going to repeat it every time someone reads one post, or one part of a post and then ignores the rest of the stream of thought.

Sorry, I'm still lost. Do you mean this one...

"What's to elaborate sir? This is not the only forum I post on. Canadian papers aren't the only ones I read. It's pretty simple: Before the election Afghanistan was the 'good fight' to Republicans. The moment Obama stated he was going to make Afghanistan a priority (still before the election actually) they all decided it was a lost cause; go ahead - let Osama go, let the Taliban return.

or this one...

"You're referring to republican politicians and I'm referring to Republican commentators and plain supporters."

In either case, it's still unsupportable. Which commentator(s)? It sure as Hell isn't the more well known ones. You'll get a gold star if you can show me somebody like Michelle Malkin saying something like what you suggest. I don't know, maybe somebody like David Frum of the RINO bent, or maybe some crazed Libertarian, but overall I read a lot from Rebublican supporters. I don't see it.

Edit

Oh wait, I'll bet I know where you got that impression of Anti-Afghanistan Republican supporters. You've been watching CNN, right? Those guys they bring in to sit on panels, and claim to support the Republican view are about as Republican as Dede Scozzafava. They're token talking heads of Republican name, but Liberal bias, slipped in to try to make it look like CNN is balanced.

[BartSimpson]

MacDonaill wrote:

And FYI, the US was not founded on the principles of the Christian Bible any more than Canada was (and in fact, even less).

Been hanging out with Derby lately?

But, of course, you know more about the USA than do these fellows:

Quote:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. - JOHN ADAMS

...the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. - TEDDY ROOSEVELT

America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. - WOODROW WILSON

American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. - HERBERT HOOVER

This is a Christian Nation. - HARRY TRUMAN

Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. - RICHARD NIXON

But what do they know? They were just Presidents of The United States and you're a Google Ph.D.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

Akhenaten wrote:

You're referring to republican politicians and I'm referring to Republican commentators and plain supporters."

In either case, it's still unsupportable.

No sir. I've read everywhere people who were pro-Afghanistan turn around and start to think of the place as unwinnable very shortly after Obama 'got behind it'. Same kind of people who post threads like this one. Am I going to drag it here? No. I'm not going to argue it for 40 posts, see why below.

Quote:

Oh wait, I'll bet I know where you got that impression of Anti-Afghanistan Republican supporters. You've been watching CNN, right? Those guys they bring in to sit on panels, and claim to support the Republican view are about as Republican as Dede Scozzafava.

No. CNN doesn't enter into it. You see me on my side of the screen glued to CNN. I'm not. More like the Economist and a few others.
For the most part I'm talking about commentators, bloggers, long time forum Republicans and the like.
Anyways the manner in which you try to pre-empt a counter here is exactly why I'm not going to bother bringing anything. You'll just arbitarily decide that any Republican who starts talking poorly about the war in Afghanistan simply because Obama showed support for it "isn't really a Republican". I'm not interested in that kind of 'debate' today, thanks.

[N_Fiddledog]

Akhenaten wrote:

Anyways the manner in which you try to pre-empt a counter here is exactly why I'm not going to bother bringing anything. You'll just arbitarily decide that any Republican who starts talking poorly about the war in Afghanistan simply because Obama showed support for it "isn't really a Republican". I'm not interested in that kind of 'debate' today, thanks.

No. I'm saying you may be able to find some isolated exception to the rule, but overall the Republican feeling concerning Afghanistan would be something more like this one from Fox News.



There have been Republican commentators who pointed out the hypocrisy of Obama fighting the idea of the surge in Iraq, then calling for one in Afghanistan (something Obama has since back-tracked on).

Lately there have been Republicans who criticize a band-aid solution of a small increase in troops to Afghanistan, when what's required is the more or less successful Iraqi style surge.

But if you're claiming there is a general Republican call for peace by defeat from Republican commentators, supporters, or politicians, I say you're wrong.

Even if you do post possible exceptions like say center-leaning-left David Frum, or Libertarian Ron Paul your claim was this is a hypocritical switching of horses in mid-stream by Repulicans. I'd want to see evidence of that.

[CanadianJeff]

Why are we arguing in a thread started by a bunch of batty tinfoil hat morons. Can't we be united in our front against the stupidity of posting that Obama is a Muslim by the same groups of people who attacked him so hard over what his pastor said before?

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff wrote:

Why are we arguing in a thread started by a bunch of batty tinfoil hat morons. Can't we be united in our front against the stupidity of posting that Obama is a Muslim by the same groups of people who attacked him so hard over what his pastor said before?

The 'tinfoil' folks are, in this case, reacting to things that Obama himself is on the record (and on tape) saying publicly. He would not be bothered by these comments had he not said them in the first place.

The position you are in is that of denying and refuting things that Obama said himself.

Ironically, it is then his detractors who are agreeing with him.

[Akhenaten]

Quote:

The position you are in is that of denying and refuting things that Obama said himself.

No. The claim of these threads always starts with "Obama IS a muslim", or "Obama admits he's a Muslim", and in every case, no he doesn't. So no, refuting this bs is not refuting anything he's said himself.

Show me where he states he is a muslim and I'll retract that happily and never bring up the subject again. Show me where he says he's a 'proud muslim' or he's going to 'shove it down your throat'. These kind of games and hysterics are right inline with any proud white supremicy sites....and don't go getting edgy about that claiming I'm using the race card because I'm not -> because this is exactly the kind of ambiguous yet accusing language they use; "I'm not saying....I'm just saying" on sites like stormfront, etc.

[CanadianJeff]

You just nailed it. Most of these sayings come from his overseas trips into the middle east where he does show respect towards the Muslim religion because he is in the region and wishes to show the non radical Muslim people that we are on the same darn side.

The problem comes when people take comments out of context. I've seen people do the exact same thing with Bush and it wasn't fair then either.

It's just something that people who hate politicians do against them.