molson_golden2002 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 Nor that country in East Asia that gets the most comparison to Iraq. No sirree Bob, they were men of peace. Sorry, all of you are idiots, but what else is new? I love how you "non-Bush supporters" go to such lengths to compare him to successful Democrats of the past. For your info GG, JFK inherited Nam from Ike and he was very hesitant about going further and may have been reversing course had he gotten another term. All those other instances you Bushbots sight do not compare to Iraq. You guys are always trying to turn Iraq in WW2, Korea or whatever. It's Bushish Botist par excellence. Neo-Con propaganda exercise 101. Forget it, it's a bull sh-- argument. Bay of Pigs was hardley something Kennedy was chomping at the bit to get involved in. And he let it go as quickly as he could, unlike Bush and Iraq. Missles in Cuba are hardly comparable to Saddam and whatever he may have had. AND KENNEDY DIDN'T FOKING INVADE CUBA YOU FOKING DUMB ASS! And the Korea comparsion is equally inane, they had overrun our forces So, these were men of peace that took war as a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Molson, Please give us an idea on how it is to live in Imaginationland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Sorry, all of you are idiots, but what else is new? I love how you "non-Bush supporters" go to such lengths to compare him to successful Democrats of the past. For your info GG, JFK inherited Nam from Ike and he was very hesitant about going further and may have been reversing course had he gotten another term. All those other instances you Bushbots sight do not compare to Iraq. You guys are always trying to turn Iraq in WW2, Korea or whatever. It's Bushish Botist par excellence. Neo-Con propaganda exercise 101. Forget it, it's a bull sh-- argument. Bay of Pigs was hardley something Kennedy was chomping at the bit to get involved in. And he let it go as quickly as he could, unlike Bush and Iraq. Missles in Cuba are hardly comparable to Saddam and whatever he may have had. AND KENNEDY DIDN'T FOKING INVADE CUBA YOU FOKING DUMB ASS! And the Korea comparsion is equally inane, they had overrun our forces So, these were men of peace that took war as a last resort. See that you're back on the sauce. So asking "how does ridding the Democratic Party of "warmongers" square with some of the most aggressive military actions by the US in the past century led by Dem presidents" is a Bush defense? JFK inherited Vietnam and was going to pull out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 See that you're back on the sauce. 1) So asking "how does ridding the Democratic Party of "warmongers" square with some of the most aggressive military actions by the US in the past century led by Dem presidents" is a Bush defense? 2) JFK inherited Vietnam and was going to pull out? 1) Lieberman left the Democratic Party in defense of Bush's policies, or did you miss that somehow? 2) Ummmm...ya? You didn't know we were enganged in Nam before Kennedy became President? And it wasn't Kennedy that sent 500,000 troops to that quagmire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 1) Lieberman left the Democratic Party in defense of Bush's policies, or did you miss that somehow? Actually, he was kicked out by frothing lunatics like yourself. Fortunately, CT is dominated by Independents and not frothing lunatics, so he was easily reelected. Please restrict your raving insanity to your own elected reps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Sorry, all of you are idiots, but what else is new? I love how you "non-Bush supporters" go to such lengths to compare him to successful Democrats of the past. For your info GG, JFK inherited Nam from Ike and he was very hesitant about going further and may have been reversing course had he gotten another term. All those other instances you Bushbots sight do not compare to Iraq. You guys are always trying to turn Iraq in WW2, Korea or whatever. It's Bushish Botist par excellence. Neo-Con propaganda exercise 101. Forget it, it's a bull sh-- argument. Bay of Pigs was hardley something Kennedy was chomping at the bit to get involved in. And he let it go as quickly as he could, unlike Bush and Iraq. Missles in Cuba are hardly comparable to Saddam and whatever he may have had. AND KENNEDY DIDN'T FOKING INVADE CUBA YOU FOKING DUMB ASS! And the Korea comparsion is equally inane, they had overrun our forces So, these were men of peace that took war as a last resort. Nice to see that your knowledge of recent American history is as infantile as your knowledge of everything else. We appreciate the consistency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 1) Lieberman left the Democratic Party in defense of Bush's policies, or did you miss that somehow? I did not miss that, but it's irrelevant because I was responding to the "men of peace" comment. But let's not quibble over minor items like that, because below.... 2) Ummmm...ya? You didn't know we were enganged in Nam before Kennedy became President? And it wasn't Kennedy that sent 500,000 troops to that quagmire You're right, it wasn't Kennedy, the escalation was led by the other Democratic man of peace. JFK only contributed to the closest moment the world has come to a full out nuclear war. Please keep the history lessons coming, because this brainwashed guy actually misses the times when Dems had cojones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakesider Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 So...Truman's droppin' those two bombs in 1945 was an olive branch....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 Nice to see that your knowledge of recent American history is as infantile as your knowledge of everything else. We appreciate the consistency. See what I mean? Even when you have absolutely nothing at all to say, you have to say something, no matter how worthless. You are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 See what I mean? Even when you have absolutely nothing at all to say, you have to say something, no matter how worthless. You are pathetic. Maybe I should try your tried-and-true tactic of making up completely random nonsense? There's nothing substantive to say. You're so completely out of touch with reality that you would need a brain transplant to aspire to simply being wrong. How is anyone supposed to discuss anything with you under those conditions? Little hint: the fact NO ONE here can have a substantive discussions with you doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Quite the opposite, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 I did not miss that, but it's irrelevant because I was responding to the "men of peace" comment. But let's not quibble over minor items like that, because below.... You're right, it wasn't Kennedy, the escalation was led by the other Democratic man of peace. JFK only contributed to the closest moment the world has come to a full out nuclear war. Please keep the history lessons coming, because this brainwashed guy actually misses the times when Dems had cojones. Kennedy stopped a war from happening in Cuba. If you really think he could have just sat on his ass while Cuba built missles you are even stupider than I think you are. He held back the military that wanted to crush the island and no doubt would have gotten us into a long and costly occupation of the place. Kennedy avoided that. Let's be clear: Kennedy chose compromise over war As for the "men of peace" comment, that refers to leaders that choose war as a last resort, not someone like Bush--or Lieberam for that matter--that look for an excuse to go to war. And I never called LBJ a man of peace, but if you want to put words in my mouth to try and further your strawman arguments, have at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 17, 2008 Author Share Posted April 17, 2008 Maybe I should try your tried-and-true tactic of making up completely random nonsense? There's nothing substantive to say. You're so completely out of touch with reality that you would need a brain transplant to aspire to simply being wrong. How is anyone supposed to discuss anything with you under those conditions? Little hint: the fact NO ONE here can have a substantive discussions with you doesn't make you smarter than everyone else. Quite the opposite, really. See what I mean? Even when you have absolutely nothing at all to say, you have to say something, no matter how worthless. You are pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Let's be clear: Kruschev chose compromise over war Fixed. This is what I'm talking about...you can't even aspire to be simply wrong, you have to be spectacularly stupid about it, which prohibits rational discussion with you. Learn your history, idiot. Kennedy committed acts of war by blockading a soverign nation (Cuba) and denying another soverign nation (the Soviet Union) freedom of navigation over the oceans. Kruschev backed away from war. Kennedy actively sought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Fixed. This is what I'm talking about...you can't even aspire to be simply wrong, you have to be spectacularly stupid about it, which prohibits rational discussion with you. Learn your history, idiot. Kennedy committed acts of war by blockading a soverign nation (Cuba) and denying another soverign nation (the Soviet Union) freedom of navigation over the oceans. Kruschev backed away from war. Kennedy actively sought it. Hey hey hey. Stop that. He was responding to me. I should have the first opportunity to whack the mole. .. What Tom said, especially the idiot part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 17, 2008 Share Posted April 17, 2008 Hey hey hey. Stop that. He was responding to me. I should have the first opportunity to whack the mole. I'm hijacking your discussion. I have somewhere specific I'm taking it. It should be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Fixed. This is what I'm talking about...you can't even aspire to be simply wrong, you have to be spectacularly stupid about it, which prohibits rational discussion with you. Learn your history, idiot. Kennedy committed acts of war by blockading a soverign nation (Cuba) and denying another soverign nation (the Soviet Union) freedom of navigation over the oceans. Kruschev backed away from war. Kennedy actively sought it. Kennedy sought it by making a deal? Come on, stop being so stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Hey hey hey. Stop that. He was responding to me. I should have the first opportunity to whack the mole. .. What Tom said, especially the idiot part. The funny thing is, you actually believe this makes Kennedy like Lieberman The comparison is just stupid. Explain why you think they are so much alike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Actually, he was kicked out by frothing lunatics like yourself. Fortunately, CT is dominated by Independents and not frothing lunatics, so he was easily reelected. Please restrict your raving insanity to your own elected reps. Independents??? Didn't the far right Conservatives drop their candidate like a rock to run and vote for this creep?? Ya, that's just like Roosevelt! Did FDR depend on the far right to win elections like Lieberman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 18, 2008 Author Share Posted April 18, 2008 Hey hey hey. Stop that. He was responding to me. I should have the first opportunity to whack the mole. .. What Tom said, especially the idiot part. And let's just be clear here, it does take two or three of you to argue with me. None of you can handle me alone. I also think its funny that Tom is basically compare the blockade of Cuba to the invasion of Iraq Wow, just wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 18, 2008 Share Posted April 18, 2008 And let's just be clear here, it does take two or three of you to argue with me. None of you can handle me alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts