Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Why Knock Indoctrination?... It obviously WORKS!

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
Author
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 September 2009 at 2:00pm
What is the difference in the sectarian violence in Dafur and Iraq/Afghanistan. Are one group of oppressed people actually differant in your mind than the other, or based on your political view/orientation and media representation are the goals actually that much differant anymore. Joe Iraqi Kurd is is not worth saving, or women in Afghanistan should continue to be oppressed by the Taliban because a "R" is one that war, but the minority in Dafur should be saved for that would have a noble "D" on that war.

From Buchenwald to the mass graves unearthed in Iraq (filled with anti-Saddam dissidents and just plain I do not like your religious choice types), the justifacation after mass grave number 1 should have been clear to many, but only a selective view is taken by many. But again I have found in recent history if the bomb has a "D" on it it is just, if the bomb has a "R" on it it is unjust and illegal. I still fail to understand how many still consider Vietnam "Nixon's War" when JFK and LBJ were the prime starters and escolaters of the war, and of course JFK's "Bay of Pigs" fiasco (and lies to the Cuban Exiles supported until they became politically inconvienient) and LBJ's "Gulf of Tonkin" lie are not even remmembered or taught, but the Bush "lie" is overemphisized in our schools.

The military is "public service" to the nation, and warrents special attention/benifits based on that alone. Even the Peace Corps falls in this catagory.

Have any of the critics here actually been to a third world nation and out in the boonies, no, but are experts based on media representations. Sat in a small ville in Honduras a long time ago and far, far away, the villigers loved our presence for they could sleep well that night, protected from the government troops by day, and guerillas at night, and most of you have no understanding of Central America and that "black" war fought in the 80's. Being oppressed is not fun, and no-one here has any clue on that expierience. Also sat and overwatched the Peace Corps Kumbyya crowd as they rebuilt a few schools in Honduras and El Salvador, again keeping them safe from the govt troops by day and guerillas at night (and they never knew we were there)
Back to Top
slackerr26 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Strike 2 - language, 8/20

Joined: 24 June 2008
Location: Russian Federation
Status: Offline
Points: 1697
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote slackerr26 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 September 2009 at 2:37pm
well arent you just the model citizen
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 September 2009 at 3:17pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

What is the difference in the sectarian violence in Dafur and Iraq/Afghanistan. Are one group of oppressed people actually differant in your mind than the other, or based on your political view/orientation and media representation are the goals actually that much differant anymore. Joe Iraqi Kurd is is not worth saving, or women in Afghanistan should continue to be oppressed by the Taliban because a "R" is one that war, but the minority in Dafur should be saved for that would have a noble "D" on that war.

From Buchenwald to the mass graves unearthed in Iraq (filled with anti-Saddam dissidents and just plain I do not like your religious choice types), the justifacation after mass grave number 1 should have been clear to many, but only a selective view is taken by many. But again I have found in recent history if the bomb has a "D" on it it is just, if the bomb has a "R" on it it is unjust and illegal.


In case you missed it, the sectarian violence skyrocketed after we invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq.  Darfur happened to go wholly unanswered by the US, or the West in general, because Sudan's a little African country we don't care about.

We do not have the manpower to stop every state that is currently executing people because they disagree over politics, religion, or whatever else it may be.  If that's going to be your argument for engaging in war, you will be there for a very, very long time.  I personally do not think we will ever see an end to war.  I do think that there are places and times the US needs to get involved.  Those places and times are clearly not "everywhere, all the time".  Our actions since the end of WWII will force us to continue taking on a job that is far too big for us (world policeman), and what we should be doing is exerting political pressure to strengthen the UN, and require other developed countries, especially Europe, to help out the countries that are in need.  Especially the ones they spent hundreds of years colonizing and/or stealing resources from.

As to who's name is on the bombs, I don't think anyone has doubted the legitimacy of the Gulf War, although I'm sure there's still some confusion over why we invaded Grenada when the Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up.  If you check your map, they happen to be on opposite sides of the world, and Lebanon is still royally screwed up.  If you'd like to take issue with our deployment in Bosnia, I can probably find a couple people to yell at you for it, but since it does have a "D" on it, I can see why you might complain - although you might want to refer to your Buchenwald comment before you do that.  As a [url=note, Saddam killed far more Iranians than he did Kurds, so shouldn't we be helping Iran here?

Quote I still fail to understand how many still consider Vietnam "Nixon's War" when JFK and LBJ were the prime starters and escolaters of the war, and of course JFK's "Bay of Pigs" fiasco (and lies to the Cuban Exiles supported until they became politically inconvienient) and LBJ's "Gulf of Tonkin" lie are not even remmembered or taught, but the Bush "lie" is overemphisized in our schools.


Have you ever taken a high school history class?  I know that those were all covered in mine.  Vietnam is remembered as Nixon's war because he declared victory without actually pursuing it.  If, perhaps, he had actually used the military to cross into and retake North Vietnam, he might even have been right.  And while JFK may have wanted to escalate the war, he also happens to have been assassinated before we even deployed anything more than advisors.  LBJ is guilty as charged, certainly.  If only he'd been smart enough to continue the bombing campaign, we just might have won.  Whoever forgot the concept of "total war" is an idiot, as we've seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote The military is "public service" to the nation, and warrents special attention/benifits based on that alone. Even the Peace Corps falls in this catagory.


What's your point here?  Are you saying that you do think that people who haven't served are second class citizens?  I'm all for civil service, I would support required civil service even.  But given that it is not required, and the rights of all citizens under the Constitution are the same, I would suggest that perhaps you should stop looking down your nose.

Quote Have any of the critics here actually been to a third world nation and out in the boonies, no, but are experts based on media representations. Sat in a small ville in Honduras a long time ago and far, far away, the villigers loved our presence for they could sleep well that night, protected from the government troops by day, and guerillas at night, and most of you have no understanding of Central America and that "black" war fought in the 80's. Being oppressed is not fun, and no-one here has any clue on that expierience. Also sat and overwatched the Peace Corps Kumbyya crowd as they rebuilt a few schools in Honduras and El Salvador, again keeping them safe from the govt troops by day and guerillas at night (and they never knew we were there)


And that is laudable -- central America and the Caribbean are places where US troops could still be used for some good. 

BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05 September 2009 at 3:42pm
Unfortuanately graduated high school in 1968, was sitting in a rice paddy in RVN, so had a bit of a first hand look at the Vietnam War.

The "Total War" concept was lost in the halls of congress in 1951 during Korea, and since then the idea of "limited war" has prevailed. We would kill 50,000 civilians one day in a bombing raid during WW2 and nothing said, we kill 3 civilians in a bombing raid in 2009 and a war crimes investigation ensues. Look at the way the war in Europe and the War in Asia was looked upon, and the justifacations in each.

Fighting an idea vs a nation state is a new concept in warfare. War by proxy is the way a lot of these third world despots have adapted in thier battles with the west. Follow the money. France and Russia did not back the Iraq invasion, why, because of the billions of dollars in high tech anti-aircraft and other wespons systems sold to Iraq. Saddam stated he had WMD's in his arsenal numerous times, and used WMD's in Iran and in his own country's Kurdish areas, he bluffed, was called and lost the hand. After Saddam's fall the money tap to terror organizations from countries like Syria, Lebanon, as well as from groups like HAMAS, was turned to a trickle because the leaders of these countries and groups like being in charge and fear Marines kicking in the palace door. If Iraq or Afghanistan were financially backing a proxy war against the west through terror networks in some way, means, manner or form they were defacto at war with America on 9/11, just as Germany went to war against the US after the Japanese attack on 12/7.

The sectarian violense was always there in Iraq, and Afghanistan, just the media was not allowed access to it during the Saddam and Taliban eras. The Shia and Sunni have been at war for centuries, and the warlords in Afghanistan have also been at it for centuries. Once the roles changed in Iraq, the Bathists and thier supporters of course ramped up the violence, how else to get the Americans to leave, ask HoChiMihn and General Giap.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 4:18pm
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:


The military is "public service" to the nation, and warrents special attention/benifits based on that alone. Even the Peace Corps falls in this catagory.
 
I am fascinated by how you keep making statements like this, while at the same time you consistently rail against government involvement in anything.
 
Can I presume your deference for public service extends to the VA bureaucrats, the President of the United States, the members of Congress, the mailman, judges/justices, EPA regulators, and so forth?  Even the ones enacting all those government interferences into the private sector that you despise so much?
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 5:12pm
So, back on topic, here's the speech scheduled for tomorrow.

Now, would you right wingers please point out the political agenda?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 5:21pm
Let's try this again...A graded exerercise resulting from the "address" and any subliminal pressure applied to "conform" with the views presented is the issue. A good "rah, rah" sppech a good thing, making a graded exercise based on opinion of personality and speech is a bad thing, since peer presure will be applied to conform to the percieved teaching position. The "suggested" assignments/exercises are really an endorsement of the Obama position as a person not the generic position of a President, and any dissention from the student will be viewed with a more critical eye by teachers.

For 8 years all we heard from the left was the oppression of the Bush administration straying into areas it should not be. Our turn, and the left does not like the medicine it handed out for 8 years, and the youth here, politically indoctronated during this 8 year period, only see the position required by thier left leaning expieriemce in education.

Edited by oldsoldier - 07 September 2009 at 5:24pm
Back to Top
ParielIsBack View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
future target of fratricide

Joined: 13 October 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3782
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ParielIsBack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 5:29pm
I'm glad OS doesn't imply teacher behavior or anything.

Bush took office when I was in sixth grade.  I still thinks he's an idiot.  I'm not worried about Obama making one, possibly political speech to children as a form of brainwashing.
BU Engineering 2012
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 5:34pm
Yeah that's being the bigger man, OS. We couldn't stand it when they did this so now it's our turn. Sends a great message to the kids too.

Also, could you at least attempt better sentence structure? Stop abusing commas, a period is fine too.
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 6:49pm
WHAT IS THE POLITICAL AGENDA AND WHERE IS THE GRADED EXCERCISE??????!!!!!


Edited by jmac3 - 07 September 2009 at 6:50pm
Que pasa?


Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 September 2009 at 7:56pm
I think he's confusing participation grade with grading a test.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 1:06am
Originally posted by oldsoldier oldsoldier wrote:

Let's try this again...A graded exerercise resulting from the "address" and any subliminal pressure applied to "conform" with the views presented is the issue. A good "rah, rah" sppech a good thing, making a graded exercise based on opinion of personality and speech is a bad thing, since peer presure will be applied to conform to the percieved teaching position. The "suggested" assignments/exercises are really an endorsement of the Obama position as a person not the generic position of a President, and any dissention from the student will be viewed with a more critical eye by teachers.
 
Ok.  Enough beating about the bush.
 
The "agenda" in question is this:  The kids might like the President.
 
The ONLY reason any sane person would not want their kids to hear this speech is because they are afraid that their little snowflakes will come home thinking that maybe that Barack Obama guy isn't so bad after all - worse yet, they might actually LIKE a Democrat.
 
And that is the worst kind of partisan politics there is.  Not only voting based on party alone - but actively sabotaging the sitting President based solely on his party affiliation. 
 
There is NOTHING in that speech that could upset any rational parent.  Nothing.  There is nothing in the study materials that could upset a rational parent.  Nothing.
 
This is the biggest tempest in a teapot I have seen in a very, very long time.  It is, frankly, embarrassing.  I am getting calls from abroad again, wondering WTH is going on in this country.  The idea that schools are declining to show a speech from the PRESIDENT, wherein he will tell kids to stay in school and work hard - it is beyond ludicrous.
 
Everybody who is keeping their kids from this ought to be ashamed on themselves.


Quote For 8 years all we heard from the left was the oppression of the Bush administration straying into areas it should not be.
 
No.
 
What you heard for 8 years was targeted criticism towards the Bush administration on two points:  Iraq and civil rights.
 
The loonie-bin left was full of "everything Bush does is evil" folk for sure, but they were just that:  loonie-bin. 
 
There was nothing like this.  Nothing.
 
And even then, there was relatively little criticism of Bush until deep into his Presidency.  Obama has barely warmed his chair, and the nutballs are out in force - and have been since before he was even elected.
 
Quote Our turn
 
First problem:  This isn't "your turn."  You are an American; Obama is YOUR President.  YOURS.  Taking pot shots at the President just because he belongs to the other party is foolish, to say the least.
 
Certainly you should voice your opinions on all matters of substance, including your concern about the "cult of personality."  That is part of a vibrant democracy.  But when substance yields to partisanship we have all failed.
 
Quote and the left does not like the medicine it handed out for 8 years, and the youth here, politically indoctronated during this 8 year period, only see the position required by thier left leaning expieriemce in education.
 
For somebody complaining about the short-sightedness of youth, it is odd that you focus on the past 8 years alone.  Check the history logs for the broadcast school speeches given by Bush Sr. and the Gipper.  Check speech content, speech timing, and opposition reaction.  The comparison does not support your position in this thread.
 
Moreover, if we are to talk about the past 8 years - the main thing I recall hearing from the Fox loonie-bins (and often on this forum as well) during that time was that any overt criticism of the President was tantamount to treason.  That tune did a 180 on or about January 20 of this year.
 
I will not pretend the Democrats are without fault now or in the past, and any time I hear "impeach Bush" I cringe.  Similarly, there is much to complain about in Barack Obama's actions so far.  But the ongoing public lynching of the sitting President, often based on absolutely nothing at all (as is the case with this speech) is completely bizarre and, as far as I can tell, without precedent.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 10:04am
Back to Top
High Voltage View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Fire in the disco

Joined: 12 March 2003
Location: 127.0.0.1
Status: Offline
Points: 14179
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote High Voltage Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 11:18am
Nobody is condoning the actions of partisan extremists here, OS. Neither side is right in pulling these stunts but the major difference between the butthurt democrats during the Bush administration and the butthurt republicans during Obama's administration is that the actions of those butthurt democrats are in the past. You can choose to be the bigger man and not make such a fuss over NOTHING. It sucked seeing all those whiney political threads during Bush's terms, why is it magically any different to do it now? So the sensationalism swapped sides of the aisle, it is still lame and a huge waste of time and effort.

In short, stop acting like ten year olds. Dems were wrong to do it back then, you guys are just as wrong to do it now.
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 11:25am
 
Ah, good.  You went looking.
 
Now let's compare.
 
Pre-speech:
 
Bush - no particular reaction from anybody.
Obama - mass panic, despite no evidence that anything "bad" will appear anywhere.
 
Timing of speech:
 
Bush - right before an election.
Obama - just about as far from an election as you can get.
 
Nature of criticism:
 
Bush - he was using the speech as a vote-getting in connection with the ongoing presidential campaign.
Obama - he is spreading his agenda.
 
The critics:
 
Bush - Democrats heading into an election themselves.
Obama - every nutball on the right, egged on by the shouters-in-chief on TV and radio.
 
 
The speech that Bush Sr. gave was fairly similar to what Obama is doing.  Harmless in and of itself.  Overwhelmingly, the issue with the Bush speech was simply that he was campaigning.  Purely a procedural issue.
 
With Obama, there is no election in sight, and this is not a campaign.  The ciriticism has nothing to do with campaign propriety, but everything to do with this alleged "agenda."  And, BTW, isn't it pretty much the job of the President to present his agenda?  Since when is that a bad thing?
 
Now, another interesting comparison is to the Reagan speech, where he very much did push his agenda during a school speech.  And there was some criticism on that point, although not nearly to the level we have seen over the past couple of weeks.
 


Edited by Peter Parker - 08 September 2009 at 12:58pm

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
FarSeer View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 18 April 2006
Location: Montana
Status: Offline
Points: 649
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote FarSeer Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 12:23pm
I just watched his speech.
His speech never mentioned health care or any other political topic.
The theme seemed to be "don't give up."


Edited by FarSeer - 08 September 2009 at 12:26pm
Back to Top
Peter Parker View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2003
Location: New York
Status: Offline
Points: 998
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Peter Parker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by FarSeer FarSeer wrote:

I just watched his speech.
His speech never mentioned health care or any other political topic.
The theme seemed to be "don't give up."
 
And as we all know, "stay in school, try hard, don't give up, strive for success, there is no easy path, and the responsibility is ultimately yours" are horrible socialist ideals.
 

"E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself".

Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common?
Back to Top
Eville View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - 5/19, Filter-dodge

Joined: 19 September 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 3146
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Eville Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 1:57pm
^
Propagated by the state-run media, as i just heard Rush say.
Back to Top
Reb Cpl View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
2010 Worst Luck award winner

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 14004
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reb Cpl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 2:43pm
I heard about people getting pissed off about the Speech this morning on the radio, and it made me laugh.
 
Before I say why, I want to make it abundantly clear that I do not like Barack Obama. I don't care for his policies, I don't care for the fact that he can use so many words to say nothing at all, and I don't care for the extremists that he chooses to surround himself even now.
 
That being said, the man is the President of the United States- an office which is to be respected regardless of who holds it. I spent the last several years shaking my head at the hordes of people who disrespected the office of the president when it was held by a man that I (generally) supported. Lets face it, G.W. couldn't get a bout of the hiccups without being assaulted by the extreme morons that we're unfortuante enough to share a nation with.
 
Now, I see the people that I'm supposedly affiliated with, doing exactly the same crap. This mentality of "You hated our guy, now its our turn to hate yours" doesn't seem to be an effective strategy if you're looking to regain control of the political field in 2012....nor is it an effective strategy if you want to get past the 6th grade.
 
If President Obama wants to address the school children- have at it. Why?
 
1. It seems kind of moronic for President Obama to be pitching health care or those scary socialist programs that we're all afraid of to an audience that is largely incapable of refraining from eating paste.
 
2. Why the hell should I as a conservative feel that this single speech is a threat to the maleable minds of these kids? By the time the vast majority of them are old enough to vote- Barack Obama will be a historical footnote. Unless of course he eliminates term limits (Read: sarcasm)
 
3. Those that WILL be able to vote in the next election......do you REALLY think that they'll have been swayed to a political leaning by a "Don't quit school" speech that they heard three years ago? Even if this speech WAS political....there's a statute of limitations on the attention span of teenagers.
 
I don't see a threat. I see a sad attempt by the president"s opposition to make him out to be evil and devious. According to the logic behind these arguments, If Barack Obama told these people to "Have a nice day" they'd go out of their way to have a crappy one, just to avoid being 'indoctrinated'
 
Leave him be.....he'll screw up on his own.


Edited by Reb Cpl - 08 September 2009 at 2:45pm


Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 September 2009 at 5:03pm
OK, now that it is over, lets just have the same styled congressional hearing on the funding, and other issues the Dems brought up on the Bush speech and we can put this away.

So between the left wingnuts and the right wingnuts it just depends on which side you lean on whether you agree or disagree with what just happened (again). So in 2012 when the President with an "R" on his name gives his speach to students remmember what just happened, and which side you supported with what comments, so we can repeat the exercise but from a differant slant.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 5678>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.219 seconds.