naked gent
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2006
- Posts
- 2,719
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
you are naive to the core.
I suppose to the paranoid normal people often do appear naive.
PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
you are naive to the core.
Frankly, I'm a conservative who believes had we fought this war divorced from politics and political expediency we'd have been out by now.
You say "anti-war" like it's a bad thing.
.
When your country is at war, being publicly and loudly anti-war is a very bad thing indeed.
Blind obedience isn't loyalty, it's cowardice.
And I'd rather be a petulant child than a self-righteous prick.
Bovine excreta.
But you are, Blanche, you are self-righteous. Look up the definition. No, I'll save you the trouble:
self–righ·teous
Pronunciation: -ˈrī-chəs
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1680
: convinced of one's own righteousness especially in contrast with the actions and beliefs of others : narrow-mindedly moralistic
— self–righ·teous·ly adverb
— self–righ·teous·ness noun
Right. Henry, Nuremberg.
LOL. I must say you do help to pass the time.
What is really cause for amusement is the frequency with which people on the extreme left accuse others, often derisively, of behavior which they, themselves, regularly exhibit.
His accusing me of being self-righteous is a classic example.
But Henry you are self righteous, and frequently pompous to boot. It doesn't mean no one loves you.
Umm...I didn't say "quick exit." I simply said sooner. Had we NOT listened to Rumsfeld and gone in heavy handed there likely would have been less insurgency. That's my point.
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with Al Quaeda or 9/11.
Thank you.
When your country is at war, being publicly and loudly anti-war is a very bad thing indeed.
Umm...I didn't say "quick exit." I simply said sooner. Had we NOT listened to Rumsfeld and gone in heavy handed there likely would have been less insurgency. That's my point.
England was at war back in the mid 1770s. Quite a number of members of parliament were publicly, loudly opposed to that war.
Was that a bad thing?
.
lol!
Besides that, what are these horrible things that the Republicans are supposed to be doing??
In the mid 1770s there were no television cameras to carry dissent around the world and encourage the other side to carry on their struggle.
A different era calls for a different paradigm.
It's really quite simple - when the country is at war, public protests give aid and comfort to the enemy. This is particularly true when it comes from members of the government.
In the era of 24/7 around the world news coverage, considerable restraint is called for.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is one of the definitions of treason.
You seriously think that terrorists are watching our every move, assuming that because we protest war that we're weak?? .
