DISQUS

Robert · 2 years ago

MsUnderestimated:

You may want to read some of the comments by some of the friends of Orion posted!

Jeb · 2 years ago

Boehner: "After losing 3000 Americans to these terrorists, when are we going to stand up" and take them on?

Uh... if we have't been taking them on for the last 4 years in Iraq, which I think is what he was talking about, is he saying Bush has been a failure as Commander in Chief because he hasn't been "taking them on"?

It would help if Boehner or someone else would define what he's talking about when he says we need to "take them on" if that's not what he's been supporting for the past 4 years, don't you think?

And is he referring the 9/11 victims or the soldiers who have been killed in Iraq? I thought they were separate threats (bin Laden vs. Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction related program activities).

Can someone decipher Boehner's nonsense or should I just be grateful that we've thrown another $333 (plus interest!) for every US citizen into their bungled boondoggle of a war?

orion's mom · 2 years ago

Jeb I'll through you a clue. It was clearly talking about 9-11. No one has used the number 3,000 Americans murdered in reference to anything else.

But feel free to endorse the Dhimmicrats surrender to Islam. By the way this is a good time to quote our first president.

George Washington in 1798 complained, “that you could as soon scrub the blackamoor white, as to change the principles of a profest Democrat; and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.”[

For those of you who have forgot history. The term Democrat refers to mob rule.

Robert · 2 years ago

That's why this country NEEDS to be deemed as a REPUBLIC! Or have those on the left forgotten about the Pledge of Allegiance? And nice quote from the first and BEST George W. there.

orion · 2 years ago

What a shameless display of hypocrisy.

Jeb · 2 years ago

So does anyone care to take a stab at my question? If we haven't been taking them on for the past 4 years, what has the Commander in Chiet been doing with the 1/2 trillion dollars and hundreds of thousands of troops & contractors? (that's more than $1,500 per American man, woman, and child, plus interest).

And if I'm to believe everything I've learned here that Saddam was was not related to bin Laden & 9/11, then why is Boehner referring to 9/11 during the Iraq spending appropriations.

I agree with Robert - we need a Republic. What we don't need is an empire.

Al · 2 years ago

You said "If defeatocrats could only understand this true passion and patriotism, they might not have withheld funds for the troops for more than 100 days just to make a political statement."

They don't want to understand true patriotism because they think it is racist! This is why we can never convince them and why logic bounces off them. Their philosophy is very screwy.

Evan Sayet explains it very well here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

This is a must watch talk! It's not short and I've watched parts of it a dozen times now. It's that good.

Jeb · 2 years ago

Al,

The troops never ran out of money and in fact had enough even without passing the bill thru July.

I don't understand your loopy logic and am not sure who said "true patriotism is racist". if you care to elaborate, please do.

I watched the Sayet video. I found it of dubious value. Just like most of the commenters here, he acts as though everything happens to America (9/11, for example) for no reason whatsoever. Ron Paul is a Republican who knows it's not true and the 9/11 commission also pointed out that our policies played a role (the technical term is "blowback" - the unintended consequences of a policy, like having bases in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy land).

Please feel free to dismantle my logic with your formidable debating skills.

lpfefbjykn · 2 years ago

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! rhtjzrllyn