Liberal Forum

TotallyRad » 13 Oct 2014 11:25 pm » wrote: And the solution is killing Americans on foreign soil? Your solution has a record failing consistently.

WTF does that babbling baloney mean?

RichClem » 14 Oct 2014 5:19 am » wrote:
babbling baloney

Spam, I believe.

Cedarswamp » 13 Oct 2014 1:55 pm » wrote:
Conservatives are a bit too fascist on social issues to be the same as true liberals.

Maybe so, however the federal government has no authority over social issues...I would never consider a politicians stance on abortion the deciding factor in the county commissioners race

Reasonable » 13 Oct 2014 2:58 pm » wrote:
" When it comes to unleashing military power...bush is the ****...the best bringer or war ever...Big Sky

Bush's military would beat the **** out of Obama's military

jayjay » 14 Oct 2014 1:03 am » wrote:
Still, it was a war satire, after all--you've got to have a little bit of slapstick, which isn't really out of keeping with reality. And Margaret Houlihan warmed up over time as well.

Absolutely - and yes to jest, forever and ever - Heil?

I mean, Amen?

RichClem » 13 Oct 2014 2:09 pm » wrote:
Of course we were trying to save South Vietnam, as well the rest of Asia and ultimately the West.

Have you no idea the record of Communism?

We were blooding our military and feeding the military-industrial complex, you **** dope.

There ARE no just wars, you **** *******. And if there WERE, they would be DECLARED, asswipe.

bigsky » 14 Oct 2014 9:27 am » wrote: Bush's military would beat the **** out of Obama's military

Which one found Bin Laden

Cannonpointer » 14 Oct 2014 10:57 am » wrote:
We were blooding our military and feeding the military-industrial complex, you **** dope.

There ARE no just wars, you **** *******. And if there WERE, they would be DECLARED, asswipe.

So just lett a superior force steamroll a country? Using you standard we should have stayed out of WW2 regardless of Japanese actions and allowed nazi Germany's to continue to roll.

RichClem » 13 Oct 2014 9:29 am » wrote:
I have no idea what this part means.

Allow me to give you ONE example. Any liberal who opposed torture was FUNCTIONING as a conservative, and battling a progressive.

Now, if you deny that, then you are denying one of two thigs: Either that torture was a progressive policy, or that opposing progressivism is not a conservaiive function.

Huey » 14 Oct 2014 10:59 am » wrote:
So just lett a superior force steamroll a country? Using you standard we should have stayed out of WW2 regardless of Japanese actions and allowed nazi Germany's to continue to roll.

Using your standard, we'd have fought WWII without a declaration of war, and our soldiers who were taken prisoner would rightly have been treated as common criminals who killed people NOT in a war zone - the fate of those who were captured in Vietnam.

They were abandoned. We had no legal argument on their behalf. No state of war existed, and yet there they were - just killing folks right and left (some of them were even soldiers), as if there were a state of war declared.

They never came home. They were never freed, They stayed in Vietnam for the rest of their lives, as criminals, not soldiers.

That is not my OPINION. That is what HAPPENED. And you are on here defending it - along with your mousepack leader.

What does it say about you girls and your alleged conservatism, that you defend a conflict in which our troops were abandoned by a retreating, defeated nation?

Wait - let me guess. Dan Rather lost the **** war - right?

RichClem » 14 Oct 2014 5:19 am » wrote: WTF does that babbling baloney mean?

Korea, Vietnam and Iraq have become meatgrinders. It's easy to sit back and ignore the fact that very little was achieved in our actions overseas. Communism wasn't stopped.

Huey » 14 Oct 2014 10:59 am » wrote: So just lett a superior force steamroll a country? Using you standard we should have stayed out of WW2 regardless of Japanese actions and allowed nazi Germany's to continue to roll.

Another thing about that, son. I thought communism was weak? Why would the North Vietnamese be a "superior force?" Hmmm?

Cannonpointer » 14 Oct 2014 11:49 am » wrote:
Another thing about that, son. I thought communism was weak? Why would the North Vietnamese be a "superior force?" Hmmm?

Relative to south Vietnam, it was superior.

Cannonpointer » 14 Oct 2014 11:21 am » wrote:
Using your standard, we'd have fought WWII without a declaration of war, and our soldiers who were taken prisoner would rightly have been treated as common criminals who killed people NOT in a war zone - the fate of those who were captured in Vietnam.

They were abandoned. We had no legal argument on their behalf. No state of war existed, and yet there they were - just killing folks right and left (some of them were even soldiers), as if there were a state of war declared.

They never came home. They were never freed, They stayed in Vietnam for the rest of their lives, as criminals, not soldiers.

That is not my OPINION. That is what HAPPENED. And you are on here defending it - along with your mousepack leader.

What does it say about you girls and your alleged conservatism, that you defend a conflict in which our troops were abandoned by a retreating, defeated nation?

Wait - let me guess. Dan Rather lost the **** war - right?

Nice deflection.

Cannonpointer » 14 Oct 2014 11:15 am » wrote: Allow me to give you ONE example. Any liberal who opposed torture was FUNCTIONING as a conservative, and battling a progressive.

Now, if you deny that, then you are denying one of two thigs: Either that torture was a progressive policy, or that opposing progressivism is not a conservaiive function.

No, no, it's torture to see you battling your progressive psychosis as you mis-define conservatism.

Huey » 14 Oct 2014 12:15 pm » wrote: Nice deflection.

sure. no one sees that for the weak cowardly troll crap that it is. this guy is just too damned deceptive for me to pick up on.

Brattle Street » 14 Oct 2014 12:48 pm » wrote:
sure. no one sees that for the weak cowardly troll crap that it is. this guy is just too damned deceptive for me to pick up on.

No, you are too damn ugly and have been with too many men for you to pick up on me.

RichClem » 14 Oct 2014 12:43 pm » wrote:
No, no, it's torture to see you battling your progressive psychosis as you mis-define conservatism.

I'm pretty sure it's the giggly queers who huzzah torture, and who cannot WAIT to gush the next meme some asswipe in a think tank invents, who have mis-defined conservatism, glory hole. It was not I who pretzeled himself to defend a police state which keeps 88% of its population in landless penury, troglodyte.

I can promise you this, you soulless twat: YOU - a boy **** meme spewer with an iq of 60 - are not going to be defining conservatism for anyone except your fellow craigers, you vagina.

Huey » 14 Oct 2014 12:15 pm » wrote: Nice deflection.

Thanks.

Actually, my nickname for it is "Religion," not "Deflection."

But, yeah - I dick-slapped ya, and ya got a thrill.

I notice that every time I dick slap you, you feel compelled to compliment me.

bigsky » 14 Oct 2014 9:27 am » wrote: Bush's military would beat the **** out of Obama's military

The secret dungeon queen military? The don't ask, don't tell, but get lots of homosexual rape snapshots military?

I don't think so, son. They might break a nail.