Top Ten Myths about Iraq

That's exactly -- and I do mean exactly, within the tolerances of the best measurements humanly possible -- the same stupid-ass non-reasoning that got our butts kicked in Vietnam.

Apparently, you don't understand units of measure either... that's really sad.

In the first place, Vietnam was never viewed as a war we had to win. Some people tried to make that case, but most people didn't ever see it that way. In any event, it (our withdrawal) was certainly handled in a way which didn't appear that we had lost.

Secondly... It wasn't the people resolved to defeating the enemy that was the problem in Vietnam, it was the politicians in Washington, who weren't resolved to total victory.

Finally... We never actually never "got our butts kicked" in Vietnam. We won every major battle fought, and pushed the enemy to the brink of surrender. Eventually, we allowed pinheads like you to convince us, we could leave and not be seen as losers... well, so much for that theory!

Just this one sentence from you, and it's easy to understand how warped and twisted the liberal mind is, when it comes to wars we've fought. You haven't the slightest concept of what happened in Vietnam, or how it ended. In your pea-brained liberal pinhead, you think Vietnam was this invincible enemy we were unable to admit we couldn't beat, and after a decade of getting beaten by them, we finally gave up and surrendered. That's about as far from the truth as the tolerances of human measurement can account for.
 
ypress...your quotes from Dixie make it quite clear.... we should all laugh our asses off when he comes begging for some civility on the part of the democrats...fuck him and fuck his stupid party...we should NEVER allow America to forget who got us into this godawful mess.
 
uscitizen said:
And with Dixie it had to be a "total victory" , whatever that is......
Click to expand...


Yeah, I know... "victory" is a tough word for you liberals to understand. It's the opposite of "defeat" and you should be very familiar with that. Although you've never actually experienced "total victory" it does exist, and it's not a myth. You remember when Walter Mondale lost the presidency in a landslide to Ronald Reagan? Well... while that was viewed by you as a total defeat, but it was also a 'total victory' for Reagan.

Better yet, remember when Clinton won, and all you liberals had that tingly wet feeling in your pants? Well, that is sort of how "total victory" feels. Of course, Clinton was not a true liberal, he was more a political opportunist, so the "victory" wasn't "total" in that regard, but you certainly believed it was at the time, and hopefully, you can relate to that experience.

I hope this example has helped you to understand what "total victory" is, or at least a basic understanding of the concept. It's sad to think people are going through life believing it is a myth.
 
Perhaps this is why Dixie used to argue against paying any attention to history.
Ignoring past mistakes is the only way his neos can rule.
 
Dixie said:
Yeah, I know... "victory" is a tough word for you liberals to understand. It's the opposite of "defeat" and you should be very familiar with that. Although you've never actually experienced "total victory" it does exist, and it's not a myth. You remember when Walter Mondale lost the presidency in a landslide to Ronald Reagan? Well... while that was viewed by you as a total defeat, but it was also a 'total victory' for Reagan.

Better yet, remember when Clinton won, and all you liberals had that tingly wet feeling in your pants? Well, that is sort of how "total victory" feels. Of course, Clinton was not a true liberal, he was more a political opportunist, so the "victory" wasn't "total" in that regard, but you certainly believed it was at the time, and hopefully, you can relate to that experience.

I hope this example has helped you to understand what "total victory" is, or at least a basic understanding of the concept. It's sad to think people are going through life believing it is a myth.
Click to expand...



LOL, you understand me so little, I never liked Clowntoon, I don't even like the Dems all that much and just feel that they are a bit less dangerous to our country than the repubs. But we need some of both parties idelas to keep things somewhat in balance.
However your bluejean butted idol and his group purely sucks.
Just keep your delusions if it keeps you warm and fuzzy though ;)
 
Last edited:
we should all laugh our asses off when he comes begging for some civility on the part of the democrats

Yeah, that's what Jesus would do alright... that's the "Christian" thing to do, isn't it?


For the record, hypocrite, I ain't "begging" for anything! I am suggesting, and rightly so, that in order to move this country forward in any tangible or beneficial way, we will eventually have to stop playing partisan politics and start working together again. The tone I hear from Democrats, sounds as if you want to relegate all Republicans to living in a stagnant pond somewhere, and never allow them to speak again.

I've got news for you, if a Senate of 41 Democrats can manage to gum up the works and filibuster in an obstructionist manner, a Senate of 41 Republicans can do the same. Our minority can be just as cantankerous and disregarding of the majority as your minority has been, and will be glad to demonstrate that for you in the next two years. We're not packing up and heading to the pond with our muzzles just yet.
 
don't even like the Dems all that much and just feel that they are a bit less dangerous to our country than the repubs. But we need some of both parties idelas to keep things somewhat in balance.

This is such an idiotic statement, even the pinheads don't understand it! What the fuck are you saying? Democrats and Republicans are both clearly "dangerous to our country" but the Democrats are less dangerous, so you think it's best to have a little of both? Well, why stop there?... Communists and Fascists are dangerous too... can't we have some of their ideals as well? What about Anarchists? By your theory, we should give some power to them, they are among the most dangerous to the country!

Do you actually THINK about these things before you post them?
 
Dixie said:
we should all laugh our asses off when he comes begging for some civility on the part of the democrats

Yeah, that's what Jesus would do alright... that's the "Christian" thing to do, isn't it?


For the record, hypocrite, I ain't "begging" for anything! I am suggesting, and rightly so, that in order to move this country forward in any tangible or beneficial way, we will eventually have to stop playing partisan politics and start working together again. The tone I hear from Democrats, sounds as if you want to relegate all Republicans to living in a stagnant pond somewhere, and never allow them to speak again.

I've got news for you, if a Senate of 41 Democrats can manage to gum up the works and filibuster in an obstructionist manner, a Senate of 41 Republicans can do the same. Our minority can be just as cantankerous and disregarding of the majority as your minority has been, and will be glad to demonstrate that for you in the next two years. We're not packing up and heading to the pond with our muzzles just yet.
Click to expand...

my point is... when your side held all the cards, you were anything but civil and non-partisan.... so suggesting that democrats act that way now that they will soon control congress is laughable. And Jesus would not have ever suggested being kissy-kissy to the moneychangers in the temple, regardless of whether his followers were to ever achieve a majority.

My statement stands: We should make sure that America never forgets who got us into this godawful mess and make sure that you are relegated to kid's table for decades to come.
 
Dixie said:
don't even like the Dems all that much and just feel that they are a bit less dangerous to our country than the repubs. But we need some of both parties idelas to keep things somewhat in balance.

This is such an idiotic statement, even the pinheads don't understand it! What the fuck are you saying? Democrats and Republicans are both clearly "dangerous to our country" but the Democrats are less dangerous, so you think it's best to have a little of both? Well, why stop there?... Communists and Fascists are dangerous too... can't we have some of their ideals as well? What about Anarchists? By your theory, we should give some power to them, they are among the most dangerous to the country!

Do you actually THINK about these things before you post them?
Click to expand...

Thankfully many people are smarter than you and do understand this concept dix.
 
Dixie, your pleas for bipartisanship were conspicuously absent for the last few years, right up till about Nov. 7, 2006. So, I think its fair to question if your motives are entirely principled.

Up until Nov. 7 you were full of bluster about how democrats were traitors, and how the majority rules.
 
maineman said:
my point is... when your side held all the cards, you were anything but civil and non-partisan.... so suggesting that democrats act that way now that they will soon control congress is laughable. And Jesus would not have ever suggested being kissy-kissy to the moneychangers in the temple, regardless of whether his followers were to ever achieve a majority.

My statement stands: We should make sure that America never forgets who got us into this godawful mess and make sure that you are relegated to kid's table for decades to come.
Click to expand...


when your side held all the cards, you were anything but civil and non-partisan

Me personally, or my party? Dixie ain't ever going to be politically civil and non-partisan to liberals, it's not in my nature. I can certainly work together with liberals for a common objective, ask Lady T. I can certainly have an intelligent and respectful conversation and civil discourse with a liberal, ask Care4All. If you are talking about Republicans as a party, I think they were MORE than civil and non-partisan toward pinheads. McCain has practically sold his soul to liberals... Bush let Ted Frikkin Kennedy help craft his coveted Education Bill!

Was Bush keeping Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Colin Powell imprisoned against their will? These liberal 'darlings' were part of the Bush team, until they decided to resign and write their back-stabbing books about Bush. I could arguably say, Bush's bending over backwards to be 'non-partisan and civil' toward liberals, is the root of all his problems with the conservative base.

From spending, to lack of using the veto to stop it, lack of pressure to stop the filibustering of judges, compromising on key conservative principles to garner liberal support for Iraq or whatever... all of this hurt Bush tremendously. Meanwhile, we have the ex-Vice President Algore, out there screeching that Bush is practically a traitor to America... Democrat leaders getting away with outright slanderous comparisons of Bush to Hitler, or Pol Pot... And Cindy Shehan calling Bush a "dirty filthy bastard" on the evening news everyday! ...Yeah, that's real fucking civility, ain't it?

and make sure that you are relegated to kid's table for decades to come.

Let's get something straight, there is no "kids table" in Congress or Washington D.C. reserved for the elected representation of The People. We ALL get to sit at the Grown Up table, and for now, you get the big seat on the end. There are two possible results from you sitting in the big seat, we could actually have a civilized meal and enjoy a wonderful desert together, but if you persist with flicking your peas at the Republicans, there is going to be a food fight and utter pandemonium, before the table is cleared with your fat ass. The only thing that will happen for decades to come, is people will remember not to ever put the whiny-ass two-year-olds at the head of the table again, just because they pitched a hissy fit.
 
Dixie said:
Was Bush keeping Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Colin Powell imprisoned against their will? These liberal 'darlings' were part of the Bush team, until they decided to resign and write their back-stabbing books about Bush.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Colin Powell, the flamboyant, flaming liberal. Do you even know what the hell a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" is??
 
And Jesus would not have ever suggested being kissy-kissy to the moneychangers in the temple, regardless of whether his followers were to ever achieve a majority.

Why is it, you justify being such a condescending prick and arrogant belligerent bastard, by continually referring to Jesus' anger at people in the church who were profiteering from God? Do you believe that act made it okay for you to be such a person in cases you see fit? It certainly seems to be your justification a lot, and I just wondered about it.

From what I believe in Jesus and God's Word, I can't find any place where hatred and bigotry is condoned or accepted. Calling people names, casting your personal judgement on them, bragging about your superiority over them, belittling them and putting them down, are not in the teachings of Christ. Boasting of your Christian accomplishments and resume, is effectively the same as nullifying it in the eyes of God, according to Jesus. Yet, you somehow manage to excuse yourself from the rules here, you will go on and on about what you've done, who your son is, how much you've participated in this or that... I think we have different understandings of The Bible and God.
 
DIXIE: "Was Bush keeping Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Colin Powell imprisoned against their will? These liberal 'darlings' were part of the Bush team, until they decided to resign and write their back-stabbing books about Bush."

Dude, you need to fall OUT of love with Bush. Its almost like you're married to the guy, and take it personally whevever somebody criticizes him.

Powell is a lifelong republican. Clark is an independent who has a history of support John McCain.
 
I hope most "Christians" are the same way, and have a different interpretation of the bible and God than you do.
 
Cypress said:
DIXIE: "Was Bush keeping Richard Clarke, Paul O'Neil, and Colin Powell imprisoned against their will? These liberal 'darlings' were part of the Bush team, until they decided to resign and write their back-stabbing books about Bush."

Dude, you need to fall OUT of love with Bush. Its almost like you're married to the guy, and take it personally whevever somebody criticizes him.

Powell is a lifelong republican. Clark is an independent who has a history of support John McCain.
Click to expand...

I don't think he can Cypress, it must be a gay thing....
 
Beefy said:
Yeah, Colin Powell, the flamboyant, flaming liberal. Do you even know what the hell a "Liberal" or a "Conservative" is??
Click to expand...


Read: liberal 'darlings'

Yes, I understand what a Liberal and Conservative are, Colin is neither. He is, however, very popular among the pinhead masses. He was a liberal 'darling', until he 'made the case' at the UN for Iraq. He was even mentioned as a possible running mate for Gore.


The point was, this president didn't come in and clean house... Democrat pinheads weren't "placed at the kid table" in his administration, they were left in vital and key roles, like that of Clinton appointee, George Tenent, who informed the president that the WMD issue was a "slam dunk". In specific, Richard Clarke was not replaced, simply because the man had vital knowledge and understanding of the situation in the middle east.

The ONLY area in which Bush has been unwavering in his partisanship, is as a social conservative. On these issues, he doesn't seem to compromise much, and it drives social liberals nuts. From a legislative policy perspective, an administrative perspective, and even from a governmental perspective, Bush has been anything but partisan in his approach.
 
Bush has been anything but partisan in his approach.

ROTFLMAO

Happy new year you idiot :D
thanks for the laughs this past year, I can see you are going to keep it up for next year as well. Thanks for all the fish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top