View Full Version : Murtha Says Surge is Working
One of the most ardent haters of the Bush Presidency and the Iraq war. Who initially said the war was lost, now concedes, the addition of more troops seems to have been effective.
This from the same man who a short time ago, wanted to drawn down the number of troops. I think he's too old to backpedal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314203,00.html
K2WH (Neocon)
The jerk, Murtha, concedes the Surge worked? How blasphemous for those on the left! He's cooked... apparently his Haditha accusatory comments are getting the best of him in the long run.
n2ize
11-30-2007, 09:25 PM
Caution -> the following discussion involves concepts and logical thought processes beyond the scope of most conservatives.
But he gives no explaination of what he means by "worked". In terms of reduced US casualties we've seen fewer casualties over the last 2 months from greater than or equal to 2.2 deaths per day to around 1.2 per day. However, before we categorize this reduced casualty rate as a definate sign of success there are other considerations that must be made.
1) Is the reduced US casualty rate indicative of success ?
2 Is this reduced casualty rate nable and/or can it be further reduced over the next several months ?
3 Why is the casualty rate lower ? Is it due to more coalition forces avoiding dangerous areas ? Or is it a direct result of reduced violence and increased stability.
4 If (2) is true does it represent the broader range of what is known as Iraq. Have hostile forces simply shifted locations.
Another point we have to look at is the statistics of violence against Iraqi's. After all they are the people who live there. And as the stats show, while violence against Iraq's is somewhat lower for this year it is still quite high and the year isn't over yet.
My assertion is that based on statistics we cannot make a conclusive determination at this time. There are some numbers that are hinting at possible success but we won't be able to draw anything conclusive for several months.
Murtha, as most politicians, dem or repub, tend to misrepresent statistics and/or fail to define what they mean. A statistician will look at a set of data and state that 1 or 2 numbers is not enough to argue in favor of a trend with any degree of confidence. A politician will look at one number and state that a definate and absolute trend has been established. A writer will use the term "success" and then proceed to define "success". A politician will claim "success" yet never define it.
Will Rogers said it best.
"Everytime the make a joke it's a law"
he gagged.
"And everytime they make a law it's a joke"
Will Rogers birthday is an official holiday in Oklahoma.
Or, as Catepillar tractor used to say,
"There are no solutions, only intelligent choices"
KA8NCR
11-30-2007, 09:29 PM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 30 2007,11:02)]One of the most ardent haters of the Bush Presidency and the Iraq war. #Who initially said the war was lost, now concedes, the addition of more troops seems to have been effective.
This from the same man who a short time ago, wanted to drawn down the number of troops. #I think he's too old to backpedal.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314203,00.html
K2WH (Neocon)
A real flip-flopper, ain't he?
Why is it such a foreign concept to be able to admit that the situation has changed? Why is it so difficult to accept someone that says they've had a good rethink of the situation?
I submit that maybe if this concept were a bit more prevalent, we'd not have to endure the surge to begin with and Bush's grandiose plans would have been, well, grandiose.
W4DFW
11-30-2007, 09:42 PM
Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Nov. 29 2007,17:29)]Why is it such a foreign concept to be able to admit that the situation has changed? Why is it so difficult to accept someone that says they've had a good rethink of the situation?
Well, considering that the Democrats have invested themselves in defeat in Iraq in order to win the Presidency in 2008, you better believe that agreeing that the surge is working isn't one of the better Democrat talking points. If Iraq stabilizes and the government there is able to establish itself as a true force to be reckoned with, ain't a Democrat on this Earth who will be able to claim they supported the war all along.
When the bad news was poring out of Iraq, the MSM was all over it, bashing Bush at every conceivable opportunity. Now that is appears things are changing, the good news is in section F on page 32 in fine print.
Even here on QRZ the left is already invested in "analyzing" the statistics to claim one can't conclude anything . . . the same statistics they used to reveal that Bush's plan was previously a complete failure and any attempt to improve the situation there was hopeless.
Oh the party invested in bad news is trying to work spin control in hopes of keepin' the Bash Bush Bandwagon running in hopes it will mow down the other Republicans, but it seems the wheels are beginning to fall off that wagon and no Democrat knows how to change one.
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Nov. 30 2007,13:25)]
Caution -> the following discussion involves concepts and logical thought processes beyond the scope of most conservatives.
But he gives no explaination of what he means by "worked". In terms of reduced US casualties we've seen fewer casualties over the last 2 months from greater than or equal to 2.2 deaths per day to around 1.2 per day. However, before we categorize this reduced casualty rate as a definate sign of success there are other considerations that must be made.
1) Is the reduced US casualty rate indicative of success ?
2 Is this reduced casualty rate nable and/or can it be further reduced over the next several months ?
3 Why is the casualty rate lower ? Is it due to more coalition forces avoiding dangerous areas ? Or is it a direct result of reduced violence and increased stability.
4 If (2) is true does it represent the broader range of what is known as Iraq. Have hostile forces simply shifted locations.
Another point we have to look at is the statistics of violence against Iraqi's. After all they are the people who live there. And as the stats show, while violence against Iraq's is somewhat lower for this year it is still quite high and the year isn't over yet.
My assertion is that based on statistics we cannot make a conclusive determination at this time. There are some numbers that are hinting at possible success but we won't be able to draw anything conclusive for several months.
Murtha, as most politicians, dem or repub, tend to misrepresent statistics and/or fail to define what they mean. A statistician will look at a set of data and state that 1 or 2 numbers is not enough to argue in favor of a trend with any degree of confidence. A politician will look at one number and state that a definate and absolute trend has been established. A writer will use the term "success" and then proceed to define "success". A politician will claim "success" yet never define it.
Will Rogers said it best.
"Everytime the make a joke it's a law"
he gagged.
"And everytime they make a law it's a joke"
Will Rogers birthday is an official holiday in Oklahoma.
Or, as Catepillar tractor used to say,
"There are no solutions, only intelligent choices"
Those "invested in defeat" democrats are having a continually harder and harder time justifying their War position. Americans are realizing this as time moves on. By election time next year, this issue of the war will have to be painted different colors by the dems -- for they've lost their defeat investment. Like usual, their foresight was lacking, just like their congressional determination to end it (the War).
They are bereft of ideas and follow through. They are spineless, just like their leaders.
KA8NCR
11-30-2007, 09:52 PM
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Nov. 30 2007,14:42)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Nov. 29 2007,17:29)]Why is it such a foreign concept to be able to admit that the situation has changed? #Why is it so difficult to accept someone that says they've had a good rethink of the situation?
Well, considering that the Democrats have invested themselves in defeat in Iraq in order to win the Presidency in 2008, you better believe that agreeing that the surge is working isn't one of the better Democrat talking points. #If Iraq stabilizes and the government there is able to establish itself as a true force to be reckoned with, ain't a Democrat on this Earth who will be able to claim they supported the war all along.
When the bad news was poring out of Iraq, the MSM was all over it, bashing Bush at every conceivable opportunity. #Now that is appears things are changing, the good news is in section F on page 32 in fine print.
Even here on QRZ the left is already invested in "analyzing" the statistics to claim one can't conclude anything . . . the same statistics they used to reveal that Bush's plan was previously a complete failure and any attempt to improve the situation there was hopeless.
Oh the party invested in bad news is trying to work spin control in hopes of keepin' the Bash Bush Bandwagon running in hopes it will mow down the other Republicans, but it seems the wheels are beginning to fall off that wagon and no Democrat knows how to change one.
I think the news out of Iraq will be sufficiently bad to support the Democrat's talking points, regardless of whether the surge is working or not.
Unfortunately, I think it would be a serious tactical error to hang your hat on that being the sole issue in the election. It's important, but I think the sentiment has switched from Iraq to more domestic issues.
In all fairness, no candidate on either side has my attention. It's more of the same.
ad4mg
11-30-2007, 09:58 PM
Ha! Listen to frozen Steve and Def-Kon ... it's a window into the bizarro world of the uber-Kons of the radical right-wing.
You guys need some new material. OxyRushbo has been using the tired, old, lame "invested in defeat" line for a very long time.
You ditto-heads are not very creative. All you seem to do is parrot your AM radio heroes.
It's like an echo that never stops.
Old, tired, and lame.
W4DFW
11-30-2007, 10:03 PM
Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Nov. 29 2007,17:52)]Unfortunately, I think it would be a serious tactical error to hang your hat on that being the sole issue in the election. It's important, but I think the sentiment has switched from Iraq to more domestic issues.
Tell me then, *WHY* do you think the Democrats are moving away from Iraq and discussing more domestic agendas?? (Trick question, be careful!!)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Nov. 30 2007,14:03)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Nov. 29 2007,17:52)]Unfortunately, I think it would be a serious tactical error to hang your hat on that being the sole issue in the election. It's important, but I think the sentiment has switched from Iraq to more domestic issues.
Tell me then, *WHY* do you think the Democrats are moving away from Iraq and discussing more domestic agendas?? (Trick question, be careful!!)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeah... their "investment in defeat" mantra is old and lame. The dems are quietly saying, "It's time to move on..."
Two wrongs make a right! They, the dems, were wrong about the War, and they've realized it's wrong to keep pushing their anti-war agenda. It they can't beat us, they are free to join the right-sided Republicans concerning this issue -- letting the brave young men and women in the Middle East defeat the remaining terrorists, while preserving the peace while the Iraqi and Afghani governments take hold.
ad4mg
11-30-2007, 10:36 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 30 2007,17:23)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Nov. 30 2007,14:03)]Quote[/b] (KA8NCR @ Nov. 29 2007,17:52)]Unfortunately, I think it would be a serious tactical error to hang your hat on that being the sole issue in the election. It's important, but I think the sentiment has switched from Iraq to more domestic issues.
Tell me then, *WHY* do you think the Democrats are moving away from Iraq and discussing more domestic agendas?? (Trick question, be careful!!)
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Yeah... their "investment in defeat" mantra is old and lame. The dems are quietly saying, "It's time to move on..."
Two wrongs make a right! They, the dems, were wrong about the War, and they've realized it's wrong to keep pushing their anti-war agenda. It they can't beat us, they are free to join the right-sided Republicans concerning this issue -- letting the brave young men and women in the Middle East defeat the remaining terrorists, while preserving the peace while the Iraqi and Afghani governments take hold.
No, that would be the right-wing approach.
There never was valid justification for invading the sovereign nation of Iraq. All we brought them was pain and misery.
It was their bad luck that we had a "cowboy" as commander-chimp-in chief who had his finger on the trigger the day he was elected.
As I've stated before, invading Afghanistan was "just" ... invading Iraq was just wrong.
K0RGR
11-30-2007, 10:59 PM
OK, let's review:
1. As a result of the magnificent surge, has the Iraqi government managed to achieve even half of the "must do" milestones they were supposed to have achieved by last September?
2. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government passed a law to govern the division of oil revenues?
3. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government formulated rules for regional elections yet?
4. As a result of the surge, have the Iraqis managed to build a credible national defense force, taking over combat missions from the U.S.?
There have been good outcomes from the surge - in some areas of Iraq, the Sunni tribes have turned against Al Qaeda and even joined forces with the U.S. and Iraqi government. I suspect this is more a case of hatred of those Al Qaeda criminals than love of us.
The Iraqi government has signed an agreement with our Bushies to guarantee a U.S. presence there for the foreseeable future.
I think the bottom line is that the surge created an opportunity that now looks like it's being squandered.
If things continue 'as-is', I expect little progress between now and the next elections. We'll see lots of Vietnam-style 'body counts' to convince us that things are going well, just like Gen. Westmoreland used to convince us that 'Nam was going well.
KC4RAN
11-30-2007, 11:09 PM
"Bad" numbers go up by X, they are not analyzed in depth, they are posted on the front page of NYT, CNN, etc...
"Bad" numbers go down by the same X, analysis is demanded, sources are second-guessed, mitigating criteria is suggested, and the numbers are basically 'reported but thrown away'.
N3ATS
11-30-2007, 11:09 PM
Where are those WMDs?
ad4mg
11-30-2007, 11:30 PM
Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Nov. 30 2007,18:09)]Where are those WMDs?
Anybody remember Osama bin Laden?
n2ize
11-30-2007, 11:40 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 30 2007,14:48)]
Quote[/b] ]
Those "invested in defeat" democrats are having a continually harder and harder time justifying their War position. #
The people who "invested in defeat" are the people who started the corrupt and unwinnable war. They invested huge amounts in money and in lives (other than their own) in a corrupt and unwinnable war. You cannot win a war that was wrong from the start. This war is lost regardless of it's outcome. It was lost the day it began.
Quote[/b] ]
Americans are realizing this as time moves on. #By election time next year, this issue of the war will have to be painted different colors by the dems -- for they've lost their defeat investment. #Like usual, their foresight was lacking, just like their congressional determination to end it (the War). #
That I doubt. This war is quite unpopular and so is this president. The democrats nor the republicans speak for the people. They speak for themselves and their interests. I am surprised that so many members of the ham radio community can't see through the self serving interests of both of these parties. Emphasis on the word party. You fight their phony wars while they party together.
Quote[/b] ]"This could be a real headache for us," said one top House Democratic aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "Pelosi is going to be furious."
Linky... (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Murthas_comments_on_surge_may_be_a_big_problem_for _House_Democrats.html)
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Nov. 30 2007,10:25)]
Caution -> the following discussion involves concepts and logical thought processes beyond the scope of most conservatives.
But he gives no explaination of what he means by "worked". In terms of reduced US casualties we've seen fewer casualties over the last 2 months from #greater than or equal to 2.2 deaths per day to around 1.2 per day. However, before we categorize this reduced casualty rate as a definate sign of success there are other considerations that must be made.
1) Is the reduced US casualty rate indicative #of success ?
2 Is this reduced casualty rate nable and/or can it be further reduced over the next several months ?
3 #Why is the casualty rate lower ? Is it due to more coalition forces avoiding dangerous areas ? Or is it a direct result of reduced violence and increased stability.
4 If (2) is true does it represent the broader range of what is known as Iraq. Have hostile forces simply shifted locations.
Another point we have to look at is the statistics of violence against Iraqi's. After all they are the people who live there. And as the stats show, while violence against Iraq's is somewhat lower for this year it is still quite high and the year isn't over yet.
My assertion is that based on statistics we cannot make a conclusive determination at this time. There are some numbers that are hinting at possible success but we won't be able to draw anything conclusive for several months.
Murtha, as most politicians, dem or repub, tend to misrepresent statistics and/or fail to define what they mean. A statistician will look at a set of data and state that 1 or 2 numbers is not enough to argue in favor of a trend with any degree of confidence. A politician will look at one number and state that a definate and absolute trend has been established. A writer will use the term "success" and then proceed to define "success". A politician will claim "success" yet never define it.
Will Rogers said it best. #
"Everytime the make a joke it's a law"
he gagged.
"And everytime they make a law it's a joke"
Will Rogers birthday is an official holiday in Oklahoma.
Or, as Catepillar tractor used to say,
"There are no solutions, only intelligent choices"
So, Murtha and company who were unaminous in their condemnation of the war, who had an expert opinion of the wars reverse progress, who's intellegent diagnosis of a lost war was unquestionabley correct are now probably wrong in their assertion it is getting better? Do I have this correct?
Hmm, someones smoking some dope there.
K2WH (Neocon)
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 30 2007,11:36)]Quote[/b] ]As I've stated before, invading Afghanistan was "just" ... invading Iraq was just wrong.
Would love to hear your "Justification" for going into Afganistan and your "Unjustified" reasons for going into Iraq. But more importantly, your "Justification" for Afganistan.
K2WH
ad4mg
12-01-2007, 01:28 AM
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Nov. 30 2007,20:03)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 30 2007,11:36)]Quote[/b] ]As I've stated before, invading Afghanistan was "just" ... invading Iraq was just wrong.
Would love to hear your "Justification" for going into Afganistan and your "Unjustified" reasons for going into Iraq. But more importantly, your "Justification" for Afganistan.
K2WH
OMG, here we go again. I'm sure I'm going to regret this.
Q: 9/11, Who?
A: Osama bin Laden & al Qaeda
Q: Where did they live?
A: Afghanistan, courtesy of the Taliban
Q: Then what?
A: US beats up the Taliban & al Qaeda, Americans fly lots of flags and are happy. Osama moves to Pakistan where the A/C is better. Country is briefly united, Americans love each other again.
al Qaeda attacked us. Revenge was not only justified, it was mandatory. We were attacked, and the ones who did it were going to pay. GWB promised this. The Taliban were stupid enough to stand between us and our revenge. They paid the price.
It remains an interesting curiosity that the Taliban were effectively ruling Afghanistan at the time. Perhaps that is the reason for invading Afghanistan.
I won't be dragged into this BS any further than this. Your next move will be to attack anything that I believe, especially the reasons I believe we had no justification to invade Iraq. Next will be the arguments already given by the administration, etc. Same old road we've been down 100 times.
This place is getting dull.
W4DFW
12-01-2007, 05:03 AM
Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 29 2007,18:59)]OK, let's review:
1. As a result of the magnificent surge, has the Iraqi government managed to achieve even half of the "must do" milestones they were supposed to have achieved by last September?
2. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government passed a law to govern the division of oil revenues?
3. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government formulated rules for regional elections yet?
4. As a result of the surge, have the Iraqis managed to build a credible national defense force, taking over combat missions from the U.S.?
There have been good outcomes from the surge - in some areas of Iraq, the Sunni tribes have turned against Al Qaeda and even joined forces with the U.S. and Iraqi government. I suspect this is more a case of hatred of those Al Qaeda criminals than love of us.
The Iraqi government has signed an agreement with our Bushies to guarantee a U.S. presence there for the foreseeable future.
I think the bottom line is that the surge created an opportunity that now looks like it's being squandered.
If things continue 'as-is', I expect little progress between now and the next elections. We'll see lots of Vietnam-style 'body counts' to convince us that things are going well, just like Gen. Westmoreland used to convince us that 'Nam was going well.
Now this is GOOD!!
All you Lib'rul loones looky here!! THIS is how you spin success in Iraq so it comes out doom and gloom in order to further the left's investment in defeat.
BY GOLLY if I was running for POTUS I'd sign you up in a NY second, as you've got the spin down to a science.
You are, of course, outlandishly looney in your response, but the substance was political hay.
Has Hitlery called you yet?? Dad'gum, at least I'd suspect, at a minimum, Edwards could use you.
Shoot, if I was you, I'd at least give'em a call. Go for it!!
n2ize
12-01-2007, 05:06 AM
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Nov. 30 2007,22:03)]Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Nov. 29 2007,18:59)]OK, let's review:
1. As a result of the magnificent surge, has the Iraqi government managed to achieve even half of the "must do" milestones they were supposed to have achieved by last September?
2. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government passed a law to govern the division of oil revenues?
3. As a result of the surge, has the Iraqi government formulated rules for regional elections yet?
4. As a result of the surge, have the Iraqis managed to build a credible national defense force, taking over combat missions from the U.S.?
There have been good outcomes from the surge - in some areas of Iraq, the Sunni tribes have turned against Al Qaeda and even joined forces with the U.S. and Iraqi government. I suspect this is more a case of hatred of those Al Qaeda criminals than love of us.
The Iraqi government has signed an agreement with our Bushies to guarantee a U.S. presence there for the foreseeable future. #
I think the bottom line is that the surge created an opportunity that now looks like it's being squandered.
If things continue 'as-is', I expect little progress between now and the next elections. We'll see lots of Vietnam-style 'body counts' to convince us that things are going well, just like Gen. Westmoreland used to convince us that 'Nam was going well.
Now this is GOOD!!
All you Lib'rul loones looky here!! THIS is how you spin success in Iraq so it comes out doom and gloom in order to further the left's investment in defeat. #
BY GOLLY if I was running for POTUS I'd sign you up in a NY second, as you've got the spin down to a science.
You are, of course, outlandishly looney in your response, but the substance was political hay. #
Has Hitlery called you yet?? Dad'gum, at least I'd suspect, at a minimum, Edwards could use you.
Shoot, if I was you, I'd at least give'em a call. #Go for it!!
Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending ?
W4DFW
12-01-2007, 05:32 AM
Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Nov. 30 2007,01:06)]Are you really this dumb or are you just pretending ?
Oh I'm not pretending, I'm really this dumb. Didn't you know??
I'm here hoping that I can elicit intellectual intelligence in social intercourse regarding issues of profound importance to the evolution of the human race.
I see that I have failed when it comes to you.
Damn.
Remind me one more time. WHO was your first grade teacher?? I have to have a serious talk with that person. Oh, you must have gone to a Gov't school. So sorry.
If you had only asked, I might have been able to stear you clear of the intellectual vacuum you now inhabit. Do ask for help sooner. There is only so much I can do with such little to work with.
KE4FES
12-01-2007, 05:43 AM
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif REMEMBER ! POGO SAID IT FIRST, CORRECTLY.
BUSH & CO. PROVES HIM CORRECT.
Charlie http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 30 2007,17:23)]It they can't beat us, they are free to join the right-sided Republicans concerning this issue...
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Nov. 30 2007,17:23)]It they can't beat us...
And people wonder how America gets polarized? Neocons are confused as to whom we are fighting in this war.
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 01 2007,00:32)]Oh I'm not pretending, I'm really this dumb.
Notice. I've never asked. Liberal genius.
I've always hoped our Decider Chimp in Chief would get lucky in Iraq, because if he gets lucky, it will mean that much less American blood and treasure will have been spilled to make the World safe for Iran's ambitions.
If you watch the "big three", you may have missed it.
http://newsbusters.org/node/17510/print
K8MHZ
12-02-2007, 02:22 AM
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 30 2007,11:30)]Quote[/b] (N3ATS @ Nov. 30 2007,18:09)]Where are those WMDs?
Anybody remember Osama bin Laden?
Nope.
Mission Accomplished.
A pile of human debris speaks.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281319376567713
Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Dec. 01 2007,19:23)]A pile of human debris speaks.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,785523,00.jpg
W4DFW
12-02-2007, 06:20 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Nov. 30 2007,23:43)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Dec. 01 2007,19:23)]A pile of human debris speaks.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,785523,00.jpg
Bush won two terms at POTUS. Want to bet how many Ron Paul will win??
Gosh. That must REALLY sink your boat.
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 01 2007,22:20)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Nov. 30 2007,23:43)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Dec. 01 2007,19:23)]A pile of human debris speaks.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,785523,00.jpg
Bush won two terms at POTUS. Want to bet how many Ron Paul will win??
Gosh. That must REALLY sink your boat.
It is called the Ship of State, and you are a passenger.
Enjoy the debt, play with the micro-Dollar, learn to speak Spanish, and be afraid, be very afraid of foreigners and your own government.
Yo, Jack, head for Hollywood, they always use another hate the military, blame America first actor.
http://newsbusters.org/node/17532/print
http://www.newsweek.com/id....RL=http (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990)
http://www.latimes.com/news....-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19%2C0%2C973036.story?coll=la-home-center)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801449.html?hpid=topnews)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Even the mainstream media is starting to catch on. Could it be that President Bush was right? Yep. Could it be that what seemed like stubbornness was actually courage, patience, and prudence in the face of popular unrest and impatience? Yep. Could it be that history will judge President George W. Bush to have been a steady leader in the fight against al-Qaeda and in the quest to stabilize the Middle East? Yep. Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, but the fact that one can even begin to ask such questions is remarkable considering the past criticism of the Administration.
Everyone was skeptical of the surge, but there is no denying now its positive impact on the ground in Iraq. Look! All the Nation's leading liberal print media are saying it. America has done its part; it’s up to the Iraqis to seal the deal with political reconciliation and compromise.
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 02 2007,05:14)]http://www.newsweek.com/id....RL=http (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990)
http://www.latimes.com/news....-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19%2C0%2C973036.story?coll=la-home-center)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801449.html?hpid=topnews)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Even the mainstream media is starting to catch on. Could it be that President Bush was right? #Yep. #Could it be that what seemed like stubbornness was actually courage, patience, and prudence in the face of popular unrest and impatience? #Yep. #Could it be that history will judge President George W. Bush to have been a steady leader in the fight against al-Qaeda and in the quest to stabilize the Middle East? #Yep. #Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, but the fact that one can even begin to ask such questions is remarkable considering the past criticism of the Administration.
Everyone was skeptical of the surge, but there is no denying now its positive impact on the ground in Iraq. #Look! #All the Nation's leading liberal print media are saying it. #America has done its part; it’s up to the Iraqis to seal the deal with political reconciliation and compromise.
So lets see researching historical records depicting democratic hysteria, finger pointing, backtracking, flip flopping, Bush Derangement Syndrome and feigned outrage and using our "Democrats for Dummies" study guide, we can predict with some precision the next logical and strategic step for the democratic party.
They will start boasting and TAKING CREDIT FOR the war (without blinking at the camera) and how they got rid of Saddam because of the alleged WMD's (which they were led to believe existed) and the torture and killing of the citizens of Iraq. #They felt their pain and were obligated to do something.
So, it was they who gave the President authorization to go to war who without their permission, the poor people of Iraq would still be under Saddam's thumb and the obviously incompetent President Bush wouldn't have been able to act on his own and wouldn't know how to anyway. #And please, don't forget or leave out the fact that all the oil there is very important to the economy of the USA and heating the homes of good Americans. #It had to be secured for the good of the country and the world. #Thank you very much.
Therefore, in reality, the Iraqi people, the people of the United States owe the current success in Iraq and the freedom the Iraqi people are enjoying to - why the democratic party or course.
By golly I think I understand the democratic method of spin.
K2WH
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 02 2007,11:03)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 02 2007,05:14)]http://www.newsweek.com/id....RL=http (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990)
http://www.latimes.com/news....-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19%2C0%2C973036.story?coll=la-home-center)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801449.html?hpid=topnews)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Even the mainstream media is starting to catch on. Could it be that President Bush was right? Yep. Could it be that what seemed like stubbornness was actually courage, patience, and prudence in the face of popular unrest and impatience? Yep. Could it be that history will judge President George W. Bush to have been a steady leader in the fight against al-Qaeda and in the quest to stabilize the Middle East? Yep. Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, but the fact that one can even begin to ask such questions is remarkable considering the past criticism of the Administration.
Everyone was skeptical of the surge, but there is no denying now its positive impact on the ground in Iraq. Look! All the Nation's leading liberal print media are saying it. America has done its part; it’s up to the Iraqis to seal the deal with political reconciliation and compromise.
So lets see researching historical records depicting democratic hysteria, finger pointing, backtracking, flip flopping, Bush Derangement Syndrome and feigned outrage and using our "Democrats for Dummies" study guide, we can predict with some precision the next logical and strategic step for the democratic party.
They will start boasting and TAKING CREDIT FOR the war (without blinking at the camera) and how they got rid of Saddam because of the alleged WMD's (which they were led to believe existed) and the torture and killing of the citizens of Iraq. They felt their pain and were obligated to do something.
So, it was they who gave the President authorization to go to war who without their permission, the poor people of Iraq would still be under Saddam's thumb and the obviously incompetent President Bush wouldn't have been able to act on his own and wouldn't know how to anyway. And please, don't forget or leave out the fact that all the oil there is very important to the economy of the USA and heating the homes of good Americans. It had to be secured for the good of the country and the world. Thank you very much.
Therefore, in reality, the Iraqi people, the people of the United States owe the current success in Iraq and the freedom the Iraqi people are enjoying to - why the democratic party or course.
By golly I think I understand the democratic method of spin.
K2WH
But then, the right side has this to fall back on:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, opened her questioning of Petraeus and Crocker with the standard "I honor you for your service." And then she let the two of them have it.
"You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy" in Iraq, Clinton said. "Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."
A little later she says, "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a positive a view of a rather grim reality," Clinton said. "I know that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand. And it is a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."
Can she eat these words or admit she was WRONG? Or, will she misdirect, equivocate, and flip-flop. Or, will the drive-by media completely avoid this democratic losing question -- like usual. How 'bout both!
Reference:
http://www.politico.com/blogs....ef.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_and_Crocker_requires_wi lling_suspension_of_disbelief.html)
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 03 2007,07:21)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 02 2007,11:03)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 02 2007,05:14)]http://www.newsweek.com/id....RL=http (http://www.newsweek.com/id/70990)
http://www.latimes.com/news....-center (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-concerned19nov19%2C0%2C973036.story?coll=la-home-center)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....topnews (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/18/AR2007111801449.html?hpid=topnews)
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07322/834685-373.stm
Even the mainstream media is starting to catch on. Could it be that President Bush was right? #Yep. #Could it be that what seemed like stubbornness was actually courage, patience, and prudence in the face of popular unrest and impatience? #Yep. #Could it be that history will judge President George W. Bush to have been a steady leader in the fight against al-Qaeda and in the quest to stabilize the Middle East? #Yep. #Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, but the fact that one can even begin to ask such questions is remarkable considering the past criticism of the Administration.
Everyone was skeptical of the surge, but there is no denying now its positive impact on the ground in Iraq. #Look! #All the Nation's leading liberal print media are saying it. #America has done its part; it’s up to the Iraqis to seal the deal with political reconciliation and compromise.
So lets see researching historical records depicting democratic hysteria, finger pointing, backtracking, flip flopping, Bush Derangement Syndrome and feigned outrage and using our "Democrats for Dummies" study guide, we can predict with some precision the next logical and strategic step for the democratic party.
They will start boasting and TAKING CREDIT FOR the war (without blinking at the camera) and how they got rid of Saddam because of the alleged WMD's (which they were led to believe existed) and the torture and killing of the citizens of Iraq. #They felt their pain and were obligated to do something.
So, it was they who gave the President authorization to go to war who without their permission, the poor people of Iraq would still be under Saddam's thumb and the obviously incompetent President Bush wouldn't have been able to act on his own and wouldn't know how to anyway. #And please, don't forget or leave out the fact that all the oil there is very important to the economy of the USA and heating the homes of good Americans. #It had to be secured for the good of the country and the world. #Thank you very much.
Therefore, in reality, the Iraqi people, the people of the United States owe the current success in Iraq and the freedom the Iraqi people are enjoying to - why the democratic party or course.
By golly I think I understand the democratic method of spin.
K2WH
But then, the right side has this to fall back on:
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, opened her questioning of Petraeus and Crocker with the standard "I honor you for your service." And then she let the two of them have it.
"You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy" in Iraq, Clinton said. #"Despite what I view is your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require a willing suspension of disbelief."
A little later she says, "I give you tremendous credit for presenting as positive a view of a positive a view of a rather grim reality," Clinton said. "I know that you and certainly the very capable people working with both of you, were dealt a very hard hand. And it is a hand that is unlikely to improve, in my view."
Can she eat these words or admit she was WRONG? #Or, will she misdirect, equivocate, and flip-flop. #Or, will the drive-by media completely avoid this democratic losing question -- like usual. #How 'bout both!
Reference:
http://www.politico.com/blogs....ef.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Clinton_Believing_Petraeus_and_Crocker_requires_wi lling_suspension_of_disbelief.html)
I believe, both those quoted sentences are and in themselves a standard flip-flop. It's built in to the Clinton retoric. She cannot escape it.
K2WH
W8EFA
12-03-2007, 06:35 PM
Let's look at the facts once again.
We have a few less deaths and violence partly because we added 30,000 troops, mainly because the Sunnis have decided to team with us to fight the terrorists. Meantime nothing has changed politically which is what really matters. #
In the meantime how may US troops have died since this thread started? #
If things are so wonderful why can't we leave? #
It is real easy to say let’s just stay over there when you have no skin in the game. #If we had a draft right now the troops would be coming home so fast your head would spin.
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 03 2007,10:35)]Let's look at the facts once again.
We have a few less deaths and violence partly because we added 30,000 troops, mainly because the Sunnis have decided to team with us to fight the terrorists. Meantime nothing has changed politically which is what really matters.
In the meantime how may US troops have died since this thread started?
If things are so wonderful why can't we leave?
It is real easy to say let’s just stay over there when you have no skin in the game. If we had a draft right now the troops would be coming home so fast your head would spin.
Questions for you...
Is progress happening? (Answer: YES!)
Will Iraqi internal politics change? (Answer: YES!)
The generally educated Iraqi people have come to the realization it it better to side with us -- to side with right and just Americans Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen -- instead of the insanely murderous and tyrannical "insurgents" and "terrorists."
As the general population changes, the Iraqi government will change also. If not by us, they will be changed by the Iraqi people. All of this will take additional time.
Ah, but we don't have a draft, do we? Patriotic young men and women -- the backbone of this Nation -- will continue to serve our grateful Nation, especially a proud and successful military, the one we have today.
I am intensely proud of the new generation of military men and women serving today -- those taking my place after a 21-year career ending just a short 18-months ago.
W8EFA
12-03-2007, 08:50 PM
Quote[/b] ]Questions for you...
Is progress happening? #(Answer: YES!)
Once again you just refuse to listen and acknowledge facts. #As I stated in my previous post and others have noted " Meantime nothing has changed politically which is what really matters. #" Politically is what is important and the generals over there will tell you that.
Quote[/b] ]
Will Iraqi internal politics change? #(Answer: YES!)
Oh Really? #They haven't yet. #They Haven't during the surge. #What reasoning do you have that they will change?
#Quote[/b] ]
Ah, but we don't have a draft, do we? #Patriotic young men and women -- the backbone of this Nation -- will continue to serve our grateful Nation, especially a proud and successful military, the one we have today. #
I am intensely proud of the new generation of military men and women serving today -- those taking my place after a 21-year career ending just a short 18-months ago.
Yes but you had no more skin in the game than I do. #You who #worked a military job in peaceful areas is not the same as young men and women being sent to Iraqui combat areas with their life on the line and as a target for terrorists and the chance to be killed.
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 03 2007,12:50)]Quote[/b] ]Questions for you...
Is progress happening? (Answer: YES!)
Once again you just refuse to listen and acknowledge facts. As I stated in my previous post and others have noted " Meantime nothing has changed politically which is what really matters. " Politically is what is important and the generals over there will tell you that.
Quote[/b] ]
Will Iraqi internal politics change? (Answer: YES!)
Oh Really? They haven't yet. They Haven't during the surge. What reasoning do you have that they will change?
Quote[/b] ]
Ah, but we don't have a draft, do we? Patriotic young men and women -- the backbone of this Nation -- will continue to serve our grateful Nation, especially a proud and successful military, the one we have today.
I am intensely proud of the new generation of military men and women serving today -- those taking my place after a 21-year career ending just a short 18-months ago.
Yes but you had no more skin in the game than I do. You who worked a military job in peaceful areas is not the same as young men and women being sent to Iraqui combat areas with their life on the line and as a target for terrorists and the chance to be killed.
The hearts of the Iraqi people has changed... I've already said that... you don't read.
Don't presume you know me... As far as service to my country, I've received my share of hazardous duty pay. Can you say you served in the Cold War and the first Gulf War? I bet not. I played in the Desert. I've carried loaded M-16's everyday for over a 365 days in a row. I earned my USAF Missile Badge the hard way during the Cold War. Did you?
Bark up another tree... and learn to spell "Iraqi."
Toodles.
W8EFA
12-03-2007, 11:25 PM
Quote[/b] ]Can you say you served in the Cold War?Bet that was dangerous! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
W4DFW
12-04-2007, 12:07 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 02 2007,19:33)]Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
By your accounts, we've failed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and anywhere else we still have troops.
I don't want to see the troops come home from Iraq. We *need* to keep a mighty presence there just to keep the other idiots on their toes.
FWIW, I'm not sure your point about the Tet offensive, but that was a major VICTORY for our military. It was also a major VICTORY for the left-wing propagandists who were successful at making it appear as a major defeat and ultimately provided the illusion everyone bought into that we were losing the war in Vietnam. No doubt, it was the high point of left-wing lunacy in the country, a lunacy that the left is trying to re-create in Iraq, much to their dismay.
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 03 2007,16:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 02 2007,19:33)]Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
By your accounts, we've failed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and anywhere else we still have troops.
I don't want to see the troops come home from Iraq. We *need* to keep a mighty presence there just to keep the other idiots on their toes.
FWIW, I'm not sure your point about the Tet offensive, but that was a major VICTORY for our military. It was also a major VICTORY for the left-wing propagandists who were successful at making it appear as a major defeat and ultimately provided the illusion everyone bought into that we were losing the war in Vietnam. No doubt, it was the high point of left-wing lunacy in the country, a lunacy that the left is trying to re-create in Iraq, much to their dismay.
So you are saying that a half-million casualties was not enough? We should have fought in Vietnam longer? We would never have "won" that undeclared war. More dead kids is all we would have achieved, but I suspect you do not care about that.
And what is this "mighty presence" BS? Is this part of a dream hegemony for oil?
ad4mg
12-04-2007, 12:27 AM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 03 2007,19:15)]Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 03 2007,16:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 02 2007,19:33)]Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
By your accounts, we've failed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and anywhere else we still have troops.
I don't want to see the troops come home from Iraq. We *need* to keep a mighty presence there just to keep the other idiots on their toes.
FWIW, I'm not sure your point about the Tet offensive, but that was a major VICTORY for our military. It was also a major VICTORY for the left-wing propagandists who were successful at making it appear as a major defeat and ultimately provided the illusion everyone bought into that we were losing the war in Vietnam. No doubt, it was the high point of left-wing lunacy in the country, a lunacy that the left is trying to re-create in Iraq, much to their dismay.
So you are saying that a half-million casualties was not enough? We should have fought in Vietnam longer? We would never have "won" that undeclared war. More dead kids is all we would have achieved, but I suspect you do not care about that.
And what is this "mighty presence" BS? Is this part of a dream hegemony for oil?
shhh, Dave. Think "PNAC". The neocon roadmap for world dominance through the use of a superior military force. Casualties are negligible.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 03 2007,15:33)]Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
Well, well...
Our boys didn't lose any battles in Vietnam that I know of... the War was lost by the Liberal anti-war types at home -- causing a loss of political will and the eventual pull out. It's "daja vu" all over again...
Quite simply, the only way we'll lose is if we let those "invested in defeat" types cause a political pullout.
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 03 2007,16:07)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 02 2007,19:33)]Seriously Steve, you are a bit too young to remember, but we had increasingly "good news" coming out of Vietnam, with casualties falling and talk of the Vietnamese people changing. It was all over the news for months. Talk of an ultimate "moral victory" was common. When the Tet Offensive hit, it was like a complete sucker-punch to your Vietnam era counterparts.
I will consider the Iraq non-declared war a "success" when the last American youngster leaves that foreign land -- not before.
By your accounts, we've failed in Korea, Germany, Japan, and anywhere else we still have troops.
I don't want to see the troops come home from Iraq. We *need* to keep a mighty presence there just to keep the other idiots on their toes.
FWIW, I'm not sure your point about the Tet offensive, but that was a major VICTORY for our military. It was also a major VICTORY for the left-wing propagandists who were successful at making it appear as a major defeat and ultimately provided the illusion everyone bought into that we were losing the war in Vietnam. No doubt, it was the high point of left-wing lunacy in the country, a lunacy that the left is trying to re-create in Iraq, much to their dismay.
Funny thing is, the lefties have completely lost their momentum regarding the Iraqi War, the War on Terrorism, and it's progress. They've all but succumb -- including the left-wing, drive-by, mainstream media.
They will lose in the upcoming primary and general elections because of this issue, to include their wrong-headed, against-the-masses stance on Illegal Immigration.
It's only a matter of time now.
N3ATS
12-04-2007, 01:16 AM
Quote[/b] (W4DFW @ Dec. 02 2007,01:20)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Nov. 30 2007,23:43)]Quote[/b] (K3XR @ Dec. 01 2007,19:23)]A pile of human debris speaks.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,785523,00.jpg
Bush won two terms at POTUS. Want to bet how many Ron Paul will win??
Gosh. That must REALLY sink your boat.
And s*** tastes wonderful. A billion flies can't be wrong.
n2ize
12-04-2007, 01:28 AM
Quote[/b] (W8EFA @ Dec. 03 2007,11:35)]
Quote[/b] ]
because the Sunnis have decided to team with us to fight the terrorists.
Or as some have pointed out... have been paid to.
KB1KIX
12-04-2007, 03:56 AM
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 30 2007,17:58)]Ha! Listen to frozen Steve and Def-Kon ... it's a window into the bizarro world of the uber-Kons of the radical right-wing.
You guys need some new material. OxyRushbo has been using the tired, old, lame "invested in defeat" line for a very long time.
You ditto-heads are not very creative. All you seem to do is parrot your AM radio heroes.
It's like an echo that never stops.
Old, tired, and lame.
yeah....
And you libs don't sound like Scare America's talking points.
Only difference.... we have a larger audience!
Jonathan
What do you mean he's been eating a "little" crow??
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpa....rl=http (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/murtha_eats_crow_on_iraq.html)
n2ize
12-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ Dec. 03 2007,20:56)]Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Nov. 30 2007,17:58)]Ha! #Listen to frozen Steve and Def-Kon ... it's a window into the bizarro world of the uber-Kons of the radical right-wing.
You guys need some new material. #OxyRushbo has been using the tired, old, lame "invested in defeat" line for a very long time.
You ditto-heads are not very creative. #All you seem to do is parrot your AM radio heroes.
It's like an echo that never stops.
Old, tired, and lame.
yeah....
And you libs don't sound like Scare America's talking points.
Only difference.... we have a larger audience!
Jonathan
Actually your audience is smaller than you think.
Mine is bigger. It is a well known fact, conservatives have big ones and libs have some to none.
Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 04 2007,06:39)]Mine is bigger. It is a well known fact, conservatives have big ones and libs have some to none.
Yep... that's for sure. I'd rather be a Conservative nutjob, than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
ad4mg
12-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 04 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 04 2007,06:39)]Mine is bigger. It is a well known fact, conservatives have big ones and libs have some to none.
Yep... that's for sure. I'd rather be a Conservative nutjob, than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
It looks like your wish was granted, at least the nutjob part.
http://thechaly.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/orgasm060906_400x700.jpg
Oh yes. The surge is working.
Yes. Oh, right there at that troop level.
Oh, my god, it is working.
kc7jty
12-04-2007, 07:34 PM
Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 04 2007,09:00)]Yep... that's for sure. #I'd rather be a Conservative nutjob, than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
you truly are gifted with words.
Quote[/b] (ad4mg @ Dec. 04 2007,09:08)]Quote[/b] (NL7W @ Dec. 04 2007,11:00)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Dec. 04 2007,06:39)]Mine is bigger. It is a well known fact, conservatives have big ones and libs have some to none.
Yep... that's for sure. I'd rather be a Conservative nutjob, than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
It looks like your wish was granted, at least the nutjob part.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif