drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 kasich speaks the truth http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/258332-kasich-im-done-being-polite-with-carson-trump. unfortunately, most of you and the repub primary electorate won't listen. there are many in the repub electorate that will be impressed by him on this. they think it's bold, candid and not politics as usual. Maybe kasich can jump ship and run for the democrat ticket.
Tiberius Posted November 27, 2015 Author Posted November 27, 2015 Maybe kasich can jump ship and run for the democrat ticket. Because Dems don't need him. Trump reminds me of the Tea Party Senate candidates that beat out the Republican Establishment and were slaughtered in the general election. I'm lovin it!
Chef Jim Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 there are many in the repub electorate that will be impressed by him on this. they think it's bold, candid and not politics as usual. Oh yes that was very impressive.
birdog1960 Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 Maybe kasich can jump ship and run for the democrat ticket. exactly. there's no room in the current party for pragmatists and realists. wacko ideologues only need apply.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 exactly. there's no room in the current party for pragmatists and realists. wacko ideologues only need apply. If you like him so much why don't you vote for him
Rob's House Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 If you like him so much why don't you vote for him Because he prefers the wacky idealogues in the Democrat party.
birdog1960 Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 1st day plans of repug hopefuls: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-gop-100days-comment-71af15a0-9773-11e5-aca6-1ae3be6f06d2-20151130-story.html
keepthefaith Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 1st day plans of repug hopefuls: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-gop-100days-comment-71af15a0-9773-11e5-aca6-1ae3be6f06d2-20151130-story.html Pretty ambitious, but then again Obama is going to leave a very large bag of crap for his successor. Payback I suppose for the bag crap Bush left for him.
DC Tom Posted November 30, 2015 Posted November 30, 2015 Pretty ambitious, but then again Obama is going to leave a very large bag of crap for his successor. It's what Democrats do. It's what Clinton did for Bush, what Carter did for Reagan, what LBJ did for Nixon, what FDR did for Truman, what Truman did for Ike, what Wilson did for Harding...
birdog1960 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Pretty ambitious, but then again Obama is going to leave a very large bag of crap for his successor. Payback I suppose for the bag crap Bush left for him. pretty big, stinkin bag of crap: That may not have been the whole story, though. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, told his memoirist in 2004 that Bush had planned "on day one" to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (and would use the Sept. 11 attacks nine months later as justification). So maybe presidents really do plan to start wars on their first day. Edited December 1, 2015 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 pretty big, stinkin bag of crap: That may not have been the whole story, though. Bush's first Treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, told his memoirist in 2004 that Bush had planned "on day one" to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (and would use the Sept. 11 attacks nine months later as justification). So maybe presidents really do plan to start wars on their first day. Pay no attention to the fact that the war was ongoing since 1991.
birdog1960 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Pay no attention to the fact that the war was ongoing since 1991. um, no. just no. we were not at war with iraq when w took office.
GG Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Since this is a thread about the Donald, who's the next target for the snake oil salesman? Maybe he'll volunteer to be the Grand Marshall at the Special Olympics?
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 um, no. just no. we were not at war with iraq when w took office. Um, yes. By any rational measure of international law we were at war with Iraq through all of the 90's.
birdog1960 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Um, yes. By any rational measure of international law we were at war with Iraq through all of the 90's. perhaps a link to an international body making such a statement would help your argument. hell, i'd settle for a prez debate quote or even a primary quote from a candidate making that statement. Edited December 1, 2015 by birdog1960
GG Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 perhaps a link to an international body making such a statement would help your argument. hell, i'd settle for a prez debate quote or even a primary quote from a candidate making that statement. Would you call sending 20,000 active military troops to Iraq a sign of peace?
birdog1960 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 (edited) Would you call sending 20,000 active military troops to Iraq a sign of peace? not a sign of peace doesn't equal war. here we go with the redefinition of everyday words as part of you cons argument. it's a pretty desperate tactic. I can't find any international body or even a xccoalition leader labeling ths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones as war. of course dc tom is under the terribly false and delusional impression that since he believes it to be so, it is. nothing could be further from the truth. Edited December 1, 2015 by birdog1960
GG Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 not a sign of peace doesn't equal war. here we go with the redefinition of everyday words as part of you cons argument. it's a pretty desperate tactic. I can't find any international body or even a xccoalition leader labeling ths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones as war. of course dc tom is under the terribly false and delusional impression that since he believes it to be so, it is. nothing could be further from the truth. Then why wasn't Clinton censured for sending 20,000 active troops to Iraq if it was not deemed a conflict zone (which can be viewed as a war zone by any reasonable interpretation) That's 20,000, as in thousand, troops. Not 20 military advisers.
birdog1960 Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 Then why wasn't Clinton censured for sending 20,000 active troops to Iraq if it was not deemed a conflict zone (which can be viewed as a war zone by any reasonable interpretation) That's 20,000, as in thousand, troops. Not 20 military advisers. who deemed it as war (and not war zone...tom said "war") other than you two delusional cons. parsing meanings outside their intended use is a weak, desperate move but yall do it on a nearly daily basis.
GG Posted December 1, 2015 Posted December 1, 2015 who deemed it as war (and not war zone...tom said "war") other than you two delusional cons. parsing meanings outside their intended use is a weak, desperate move but yall do it on a nearly daily basis. By what measure do you not consider it a war since 1991?
Recommended Posts