Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
You All Screwed Yourselves!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownShark" data-source="post: 263143" data-attributes="member: 12148"><p>"Lets take the 08 elections and the Iraq War. The Republicans say to stay the course, the Dems say out of Iraq now. All 3 major Dems refused to guarantee withdrawl by the end of their first term. If all 3 believe they were lied to and mislead and that it is such an illegal and immoral war and Americans want the war to end right now, they would have no problem pledging to bring them in right after being sworn in. Hell, the Dems hold both houses of Congress, if they really believed the war is illegal and immoral they could vote to cut all funding. </p><p> </p><p>Hillary told a womans group before the war vote "I have spoken with people that I trust and know whats going on over in Iraq, and I will vote to invade Iraq." Then on the Senate floor said "This is the hardest vote I ever had to make, BUT I CAST IT WITH CONVICTION." When Saddam Hussein was captured she said, "I supported going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam." Then, later on she says on the campaign trail "if Bush doesn't pull the troops out by 2009 I will!!!" She said "Bush lied and mislead me about Iraq" Then at a debate refused to pledge to withdraw troops by 2013. Please explain to me why she is running away with the nomination. They want Bush to pull out in order to beat Bush and straddle defeat around his neck. They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck. The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition. With all the supposed scandels the Dems tried to create against Bush, not 1 has stuck. </p><p> </p><p>Char</p></blockquote><p></p><p> </p><p>CHAR,</p><p> </p><p>While I could debate this issue to death and type endless facts and figures that would choke a horse..let me just piece in a respond to a few of your statements.</p><p> </p><p>First, let me say that it is clear from your syntax and positions that you are a Rush Limbaugh listener. Your positions are clearly his positions, almost word for word. While he can be an entertaining guy, he is far from a journalist and according to the Harvard School of Law who recently did a fact check on him for an entire month, found that he is only 66% accurate in what he says, and most of the time he either embellishes or distorts facts and uses extreme repetition to make the listener believe what he is saying are facts.</p><p> </p><p>I would recommend that you expand your resources and do more reading and fact checking rather than depend on Rushes one sided, ideological, tainted,distorted rational of American history.</p><p> </p><p>That being said, let me move on to your points that I am having trouble with.</p><p> </p><p>you wrote: "The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition."</p><p> </p><p>GW has embarrased himself to not only the American Public, but to the world itself. Prior to his taking office, the American President was the highest rated leader in the world. Second to none. At the same time, the three top hated leaders were:</p><p>1)Fidel Castro</p><p>2)Kim jung il</p><p>3)Hugo Chavez</p><p> </p><p>Today, President Bush tops the list of the worlds most hated leader. Over Chavez, Kim jung il and Castro.</p><p> </p><p>So I dont know where you get the "outclassed" part of your point, but he wont be missed when hes gone from power.</p><p> </p><p>Second, you wrote: "They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck."</p><p> </p><p>My friend, we can debate this war if you wish, I am ready to provide all that is needed to embarass anyone who wants to justify this war, but for your point of hanging DEFEAT around the necks of Democrats,...</p><p> </p><p>Well, that my friend was done along time ago to GW Bush by none other than Gen. Colin Powell who told Bush prior to this war "If you break it , you bought it!"</p><p> </p><p>Defeat was hung aroung GW's neck before it even began. You see, defeat has many faces, and those faces are easily forgotten by propaganda.</p><p> </p><p>Defeat 1- NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION</p><p>Defeat 2- NO ALQIEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ PRIOR TO WAR</p><p>Defeat 3- PEACE IN IRAQ</p><p>Defeat 4- ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TROOPS EXPECTED KILLED</p><p>Defeat 5- COST OF WAR TO BE AROUND 66 BILLION OVER THREE YEARS</p><p>Defeat 6- MIDDLE EAST WILL STABILIZE ONCE IRAQ IS CONQUERED</p><p>Defeat 7- WAR WILL NOT TAKE LONGER THAN THREE YEARS</p><p> </p><p>These FACTS add up to defeat no matter what the outcome, and they hang around GW's neck like a 50 ton elephant.</p><p> </p><p>With almost 4000 service people killed already and an average of 1000 a year and with a projection from BUSH himself that we need to stay there 10 more years, thats 14000 service people dead.</p><p> </p><p>USSR lost 15000 soldiers in a 7 year war with Afghanistan.</p><p> </p><p>For me, I dont justify the loss of 14000 service personnel for a bunch of oil men looking for huge profits in the IRAQI desert.</p><p> </p><p>Remember this slogan for your beloved republicans next time your at the ballot box deciding who will win the war on terror:</p><p> </p><p>"The Republicans, the people who brought you Osama Bin Laden"</p><p> </p><p>Paid for by the Reagan administration and the CIA, middle east envoys Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with legal advice given by James A. Baker.</p><p> </p><p>Peace.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="BrownShark, post: 263143, member: 12148"] "Lets take the 08 elections and the Iraq War. The Republicans say to stay the course, the Dems say out of Iraq now. All 3 major Dems refused to guarantee withdrawl by the end of their first term. If all 3 believe they were lied to and mislead and that it is such an illegal and immoral war and Americans want the war to end right now, they would have no problem pledging to bring them in right after being sworn in. Hell, the Dems hold both houses of Congress, if they really believed the war is illegal and immoral they could vote to cut all funding. Hillary told a womans group before the war vote "I have spoken with people that I trust and know whats going on over in Iraq, and I will vote to invade Iraq." Then on the Senate floor said "This is the hardest vote I ever had to make, BUT I CAST IT WITH CONVICTION." When Saddam Hussein was captured she said, "I supported going into Iraq to overthrow Saddam." Then, later on she says on the campaign trail "if Bush doesn't pull the troops out by 2009 I will!!!" She said "Bush lied and mislead me about Iraq" Then at a debate refused to pledge to withdraw troops by 2013. Please explain to me why she is running away with the nomination. They want Bush to pull out in order to beat Bush and straddle defeat around his neck. They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck. The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition. With all the supposed scandels the Dems tried to create against Bush, not 1 has stuck. Char[/quote] CHAR, While I could debate this issue to death and type endless facts and figures that would choke a horse..let me just piece in a respond to a few of your statements. First, let me say that it is clear from your syntax and positions that you are a Rush Limbaugh listener. Your positions are clearly his positions, almost word for word. While he can be an entertaining guy, he is far from a journalist and according to the Harvard School of Law who recently did a fact check on him for an entire month, found that he is only 66% accurate in what he says, and most of the time he either embellishes or distorts facts and uses extreme repetition to make the listener believe what he is saying are facts. I would recommend that you expand your resources and do more reading and fact checking rather than depend on Rushes one sided, ideological, tainted,distorted rational of American history. That being said, let me move on to your points that I am having trouble with. you wrote: "The opposition to Iraq had one purpose... to defeat George W. Bush since he has quite frankly outclassed all of his political opposition." GW has embarrased himself to not only the American Public, but to the world itself. Prior to his taking office, the American President was the highest rated leader in the world. Second to none. At the same time, the three top hated leaders were: 1)Fidel Castro 2)Kim jung il 3)Hugo Chavez Today, President Bush tops the list of the worlds most hated leader. Over Chavez, Kim jung il and Castro. So I dont know where you get the "outclassed" part of your point, but he wont be missed when hes gone from power. Second, you wrote: "They wanted him to pull out before the 08 elections. Do you really think the Democrats are gonna leave while they hold power so defeat can be straddled around their neck." My friend, we can debate this war if you wish, I am ready to provide all that is needed to embarass anyone who wants to justify this war, but for your point of hanging DEFEAT around the necks of Democrats,... Well, that my friend was done along time ago to GW Bush by none other than Gen. Colin Powell who told Bush prior to this war "If you break it , you bought it!" Defeat was hung aroung GW's neck before it even began. You see, defeat has many faces, and those faces are easily forgotten by propaganda. Defeat 1- NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Defeat 2- NO ALQIEDA CAMPS IN IRAQ PRIOR TO WAR Defeat 3- PEACE IN IRAQ Defeat 4- ONLY A COUPLE OF HUNDRED TROOPS EXPECTED KILLED Defeat 5- COST OF WAR TO BE AROUND 66 BILLION OVER THREE YEARS Defeat 6- MIDDLE EAST WILL STABILIZE ONCE IRAQ IS CONQUERED Defeat 7- WAR WILL NOT TAKE LONGER THAN THREE YEARS These FACTS add up to defeat no matter what the outcome, and they hang around GW's neck like a 50 ton elephant. With almost 4000 service people killed already and an average of 1000 a year and with a projection from BUSH himself that we need to stay there 10 more years, thats 14000 service people dead. USSR lost 15000 soldiers in a 7 year war with Afghanistan. For me, I dont justify the loss of 14000 service personnel for a bunch of oil men looking for huge profits in the IRAQI desert. Remember this slogan for your beloved republicans next time your at the ballot box deciding who will win the war on terror: "The Republicans, the people who brought you Osama Bin Laden" Paid for by the Reagan administration and the CIA, middle east envoys Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, with legal advice given by James A. Baker. Peace. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe UPS Forum
UPS Union Issues
You All Screwed Yourselves!!
Top