It was a mere couple months ago, that I could get republican posters to argue in favor of the surge, and argue that we had to invade because saddam violated some UN resolutions.
I can't be that good that I silenced them all?
Thread for Cypress and lefties
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
It was a mere couple months ago, that I could get republican posters to argue in favor of the surge, and argue that we had to invade because saddam violated some UN resolutions.
I can't be that good that I silenced them all?
Epicurus
Reasonable
There were people who thought the surge was worth a cry. Many if not most of them no longer thought it was a good decision to invade.
Most intelligent people are pretty much on the same page now.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
WAAAAA
Sob Sob
No one wants to talk about Ron Paul.
Don't they know he's the messiah?
Another Ron Paul spammer ruining the thread....
WAAAAA
Sob Sob
No one wants to talk about Ron Paul.
Don't they know he's the messiah?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
FAR from the truth.
Libertarians are all over the place, including many who supported this mindless war.
Are Pro-War Libertarians Right?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs19.html
Lew Rockwell
On Pro-War Libertarians
http://www.godandstate.com/2007/07/17/on-pro-war-libertarians/
By Justin Raimondo
Liberventionism Rides Again
http://www.antiwar.com/stromberg/s041302.html
By Joseph R. Stromberg
All written by libertarians.
Additionally, libertarians were NOT in the forefront of the antiwar movement and have no particular special place in it other than writing articles .. like everybody else against the war .. but not at the forefront of massive demonstrations or the politics that stood against the war.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Isn't that the truth. It really steams me when people tell me they were against the war in the beginning, or that they have recently turned against it and realized it was a mistake, and then if I ask, well what are you doing about it? They tell me "they have a life". Oh yeah? Well, that puts you one up on a lot of people thanks to this war.
And it's funny that having a life doesn't interfere with posting on a message board, watching football games, downloading pornography (always time for that!) play video games, etc.
But we can't join a demonstration because we "have a life". Well, I guess I have no life. God knows I'm not downloading porn, so that probably qualifies me as a no life right there. Whatever.
Yeah, cause all we do is download pr0n! Woot! Mo' porn!
I mentioned football games and message boards too. I know you're multi-tasking.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Truer words have never been spoken my sister.
Now that it's "popular" to be against this war, everybody wants to claim credit.
Ron Paul existed on planet Obscurity before his run for president.
He was not part of any antiwar demonstration nor did he form of join inton any coalition of antiwar groups or people .. those who really deserve the credit for the horror of Iraq awareness.
He was far from alone in legislative opposition and was one of 136 politicians who voted against the Resolution .. AND he voted FOR the attack on Afghanistan unlike Rep. BARBARA LEE .. AND did not have the forceful voice of opposition like Rep. Cynthia McKinney or Sen. Paul Wellstone.
Writing a few articles on Antiwar.com is not the same as getting out and doing the legwork and forming coalitions against the war.
300,000 people marched on Washington in 2005 and the ONLY politician to speak to them was Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney. Paul was nowhere to be found.
Don't want to talk about Bush .. then by all means, let's talk about libertarians and Ron Paul.
Criticial of fake libertarians who support war. You are back to claiming Feingold is a full fledged libertarian.
Libertarians have participated in these. I did. I quickly found they were not anti-war or for peace, just a bunch of nutty free riders trying to get interest for their pet causes, e.g., Uhuru, anti-capitalists, anti-trade, conspiracy nuts, etc. Many even promoted violence.
Besides, these rallies don't achieve a god damn thing.
Dems here claim the war is all important, but nearly all say they will vote for a warmonger if nominated, because the other side is so bad.
"Dems here claim the war is all important, but nearly all say they will vote for a warmonger if nominated, because the other side is so bad."
I'll go on record here as saying that I will vote for the candidate who has the clearest, most believable plan for getting us out of Iraq, and who talks in a meaningful way about shifting our overall strategy in the war on terror (hate using that expression, but it is what it is).
I won't vote 3rd party, however, unless that party's candidate is polling at a competitive percentage prior to election day.
I'll go on record here as saying that I will vote for the candidate who has the clearest, most believable plan for getting us out of Iraq, and who talks in a meaningful way about shifting our overall strategy in the war on terror (hate using that expression, but it is what it is).
I won't vote 3rd party, however, unless that party's candidate is polling at a competitive percentage prior to election day.
Yeah, but you know the real goal is teh pr0n! It's soooo kewl!
Yeah, I don't get it. To each their own...I'm a liberal.
I'm going to stop going to "worthless" anti-war marches, and stay home and spam the internets with Ron Paul propaganda!
That will show them. That will end the war.
And I'll top it off by talking to everybody else like they're shit and I'm something so special ain't nobody ever seen nothing so special as me.
It's cause you are too poor to pay for the best of teh pr0n. You Democrats are always poor, asking the government to get you stuff and everything.