Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 You have to hand it to Bible Thumping Socialist supporters of W, and their Zionist Masters. The French were bad bad bad to oppose invading Iraq over 100% intentional lies... at least, that's what Israel wanted us to believe, and Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters parroted over and over, even going so far as serving "freedom fries." But the truth is now plain to see for all Americans, and it is not pretty. 1. The French wanted to off Osama. The Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters did not, and made him "not a priority" because Israel wanted Taliban to hold Afghan, and not let it become Iran's ally under control of Northern Alliance. 2. The French wanted to destroy the Taliban. The Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters did not, because, you guessed it, Israel didn't. 3. The French didn't want the US to invade Iraq over 100% pure intentional lies. Clearly, the French had US national interest in mind, and didn't want the US to self-destruct, as W was so very intent on doing. Iraq was a complete disaster in every aspect. Once again, the French were right for America, and the Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters were not, they were for ISRAEL and for harming the US to serve ISRAEL. So the next time you see or hear a Bible Thumping Socialist W supporter attack the French, just remember, the US would be much much better off today if we had a French President instead of W... because the French President would actually care about the US, while W only cared about selling out the US for money and media coverage from a foreign lobby... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Hey moderators how does his constant obnoxious anti-semitic, anti-Israel posts not break the Personal "crusades" rule(posting the same information/opinion in an excessively repetitive manner. We want posters to share opinions not bludgeon others to death with them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 As with mass Bible burnings in Israel, if you don't like that truth... CENSOR IT... The W crowd had a pattern. Rove admitted that the US would not have invaded Iraq except for the "WMD threat" because the US Senate would not vote for it... http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/03/karl-rove-admits-mistake-in-advising-bush-on-iraq-invasion-respo/ "Would the Iraq War have occurred without W.M.D., I doubt it," Rove writes. "Congress was very unlikely to have supported the use-of-force resolution without the W.M.D. threat." .... hence, to manipulate the US Senate to do something completely treasonous, anti-conservative, and harmful to the US, the W crowd manufactured a "WMD threat" of total lies, breaking our laws and treaties to get such lies... and when the issue was SOCIALIZING SENIOR DRUGS to suck up to something other than AIPAC, this time the AARP right before the 2004 "I'm a War President" election, the W crowd had a big problem. Some Republicans actually noticed that SOCIALIZING SENIOR DRUGS was something other than CONSERVATIVE, so they said they either 1. wouldn't vote for it at all or 2. enough to pass it came forward and said they would vote for it, but ONLY IF IT COST UNDER $400 bil over 10 years... so what did W/Rove do? SAME THING AS IRAQ... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E0D9143BF934A35754C0A9629C8B63 "An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged" TRUTH and PATRIOTISM to the US are what W supporters oppose the most... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Lighten up, Frances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 and when the issue was SOCIALIZING SENIOR DRUGS to suck up to something other than AIPAC, this time the AARP right before the 2004 "I'm a War President" election, the W crowd had a big problem. Some Republicans actually noticed that SOCIALIZING SENIOR DRUGS was something other than CONSERVATIVE, so they said they either 1. wouldn't vote for it at all or 2. enough to pass it came forward and said they would vote for it, but ONLY IF IT COST UNDER $400 bil over 10 years... so what did W/Rove do? SAME THING AS IRAQ... http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B02E0D9143BF934A35754C0A9629C8B63 "An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged" TRUTH and PATRIOTISM to the US are what W supporters oppose the most... Maybe I missed something here, but WTF does the SR medicare benefit have to do with Israel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 (edited) You have to hand it to Bible Thumping Socialist supporters of W, and their Zionist Masters. The French were bad bad bad to oppose invading Iraq over 100% intentional lies... at least, that's what Israel wanted us to believe, and Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters parroted over and over, even going so far as serving "freedom fries." But the truth is now plain to see for all Americans, and it is not pretty. 1. The French wanted to off Osama. The Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters did not, and made him "not a priority" because Israel wanted Taliban to hold Afghan, and not let it become Iran's ally under control of Northern Alliance. 2. The French wanted to destroy the Taliban. The Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters did not, because, you guessed it, Israel didn't. 3. The French didn't want the US to invade Iraq over 100% pure intentional lies. Clearly, the French had US national interest in mind, and didn't want the US to self-destruct, as W was so very intent on doing. Iraq was a complete disaster in every aspect. Once again, the French were right for America, and the Treasonous Sub Human Bible Thumping Socialist W supporters were not, they were for ISRAEL and for harming the US to serve ISRAEL. So the next time you see or hear a Bible Thumping Socialist W supporter attack the French, just remember, the US would be much much better off today if we had a French President instead of W... because the French President would actually care about the US, while W only cared about selling out the US for money and media coverage from a foreign lobby... You might have a point on Afghanistan. I always wondered why the Israel propagandist Ed Koch has been adament we get out of Afghanistan but stay in Iraq. Edited March 20, 2011 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Maybe I missed something here, but WTF does the SR medicare benefit have to do with Israel? Forget it, he's trolling. Don't take him seriously. You might have a point on Afghanistan. I always wondered why the Israel propagandist Ed Koch has been adament we get out of Afghanistan but stay in Iraq. Figures your stupid ass would take him seriously, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 You might have a point on Afghanistan. I always wondered why the Israel propagandist Ed Koch has been adament we get out of Afghanistan but stay in Iraq. The fight on 9/10, 911, and 9/12 in Afghan was between Taliban, including AQ, and The Northern Alliance (TNA), armed and funded by Iran. When Zionist David Frum gave W his "axis of evil" talking points, Frum knew what that meant to our deployed troops in Afghan. Frum knew that TNA would fracture. Essentially, W deployed (way too few) troops to Country A(fghan) to fight with ally B (TNA) against enemy C (Taliban/AQ) and then flipped off ally B with our troops still there and the mission not accomplished. That was 100% about another Zionist Traitor, Doug Feith, and his comrades at Zionist George Tenet's CIA... http://prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=11539 "The Iranians (under Ahmadinejad's enemy Rafsanjani), who had been working for years with the main anti-Taliban coalition, the Northern Alliance, also advised the Americans about how to negotiate the major ethnic and political fault lines in the country. " "But Bush had already made up his mind; regime change was the goal. A stronger, more self-confident national security adviser would have insisted that an ill-informed President consider the pros and cons of making such a far-reaching foreign-policy decision on the basis of a half-baked concept, and perhaps insist on intelligence advice on the matter. But Rice had already earned a reputation among national security officials for always staying in Bush's good graces by taking whatever position she believed he would favor. "She would guess which way the President would go and make sure that's where she came out," says Wilkerson, who watched her operate for four years. "She would be an advocate up to a point, but her advocacy would cease as soon as she sniffed the President's position." Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld led the neoconservative push for regime change. But it was Douglas Feith, the abrasive and aggressively pro-Israel undersecretary of defense for policy, who was responsible for developing the details of the policy. Feith had two staff members, Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode, who spoke Farsi, and a third, William Luti, whom one former U.S. official recalls being "downright irrational" on anything having to do with Iran. A former intelligence official who worked on the Middle East said, "I've had a couple of Israeli generals tell me off the record that they think Luti is insane." " Maybe I missed something here, but WTF does the SR medicare benefit have to do with Israel? Israel didn't have a problem with socializing senior drugs, since Zionism is very socialist. That's why the "US media" didn't find anything wrong with W having the actuary shut up, with threats, to mislead the US Congress to socialize senior drugs... The two lies, Iraq and drugs, rather have everything to do with 1. the harm W did to America 2. the lies W told America 3. the true nature of W's "conservatism" 4. the fact that some lies annoy our "US media" more than others 5. the absolutely sub human idiocy of anyone who supported W calling himself "conservative" and "patriotic" to anything other than ISRAEL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Damn Jews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 1. cry for censorship 2. call him a troll 3. insult people who respond to the truth he posts 4. card toss anything else ya W loving TRAITORS got here?? If you love Israel... MOVE THERE!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Damn Jews. He must have been ripped off from one at an electronics store and never accepted it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 He must have been ripped off from one at an electronics store and never accepted it. And the best thing about sub human Bible Thumping Socialists is that every time you give them a chance to explain why they so supported multiple counts of treason against the United States, they validate their status as "sub human" and "traitors" by being too stupid and cowardly to explain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 And the best thing about sub human Bible Thumping Socialists is that every time you give them a chance to explain why they so supported multiple counts of treason against the United States, they validate their status as "sub human" and "traitors" by being too stupid and cowardly to explain... I have nothing to explain to a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dexter Posted March 20, 2011 Author Share Posted March 20, 2011 I have nothing to explain to a troll. You are a coward, a liar, a traitor, and a sub human. There, that's all the truth you need for today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 A stronger, more self-confident national security adviser would have insisted that an ill-informed President consider the pros and cons of making such a far-reaching foreign-policy decision on the basis of a half-baked concept, and perhaps insist on intelligence advice on the matter. But Rice had already earned a reputation among national security officials for always staying in Bush's good graces by taking whatever position she believed he would favor. "She would guess which way the President would go and make sure that's where she came out," says Wilkerson, who watched her operate for four years. "She would be an advocate up to a point, but her advocacy would cease as soon as she sniffed the President's position." That's true about Condi, she was just an apple polisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 That's true about Condi, she was just an apple polisher. Somehow I find it very fitting that you and your fellow troll Dexter have found each other. Remember he is named Dexter and a serial killer gets close to his victims first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 CENSOR IT... You are either staved for attention or the hoppes cleaning solvent is making you dizzy. Let me clarify a few things for you, 1) most people here are more concerned about your mental health after reading your posts than your subject matter. 2) This board is not and never was a democracy. Your message board persona on this private space has no constitutional protections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Your message board persona on this private space has no constitutional protections. Screw censorship. Let's go straight to cruel and unusual punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whateverdude Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 Screw censorship. Let's go straight to cruel and unusual punishment. Actually, I'm warming up to that idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Offside Number 76 Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 I'm not a fan of the Iraq war and believe it was founded upon lies, I supported and continue to support the war in Afghanistan, I think that W did more to harm our country than to help it, and I still for the life of me cannot figure out what the hell the OP is talking about. It appears insane. Anyway, I came here to look at some opinions on what's going on in Libya. On to that, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts