Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Senate Confirms Mukasey


EmpressStarXVII

Recommended Posts

 
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • BrucePrime

    17

  • Bob26003

    13

  • Lt_Ripley

    7

  • EmpressStarXVII

    3

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

ok I'll find you more US protest pics - feel better brucie ? bbl

Go right ahead. There were more on the first site you posted, but those were poor excuses for protests. (And just bad pics).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go right ahead. There were more on the first site you posted, but those were poor excuses for protests. (And just bad pics).

but here's what you stated brucie --

Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office.

Funny how war is wrong in 2007...but in '99...it was okay. What changed, other than who was sitting in the Oval Office?

now eat your crow like a good boy. as for a poor excuse ? that's your uneducated opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1999 WASHINGTON, D.C. PROTESTS

AGAINST THE US-NATO

BOMBINGS OF YUGOSLAVIA

See FreeRepublic.Com protest vs Kosovo War

That's funny. This was a freeper protest?

If I remember right, Dem-partyman-leftists at the time were telling us how great Clinton was, how good lying was, why sex isn't sex, how smart, diplomatic and clever Bill was every time he pulled a wag the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but here's what you stated brucie --

now eat your crow like a good boy. as for a poor excuse ? that's your uneducated opinion.

I never said there weren't protests (but you'd have to read other posts and not take things out of context. Hard work for a liar like you, I know)...I said they didn't compare to what would come in 2003. Because those who claim to be anti-war couldn't be bothered back then. As Garofalo said, it just wasn't cool.

And all you can find are a few protests that happened in DC. Not the nationwide protests we'd see later on, just a few paltry protests in DC...many of which took place as the war was winding down, or after it had ended! (Take a lot of courage to protest a war that's ending, doesn't it?)

Besides, my assertion was backed up by Bob's dancing around and excusing what happened in Kosovo...he's anti-war, but bombing someone for 10 weeks is okay, because it wasn't called "a war." It just proves what I was saying. We have very short and selective memories and tend to excuse things we wouldn't otherwise when "our guy" is in office.

Edited by BrucePrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said there weren't protests (but you'd have to read other posts and not take things out of context. Hard work for a liar like you, I know)...I said they didn't compare to what would come in 2003. Because those who claim to be anti-war couldn't be bothered back then. As Garofalo said, it just wasn't cool.

And all you can find are a few protests that happened in DC. Not the nationwide protests we'd see later on, just a few paltry protests in DC...many of which took place as the war was winding down, or after it had ended! (Take a lot of courage to protest a war that's ending, doesn't it?)

Besides, my assertion was backed up by Bob's dancing around and excusing what happened in Kosovo...he's anti-war, but bombing someone for 10 weeks is okay, because it wasn't called "a war." It just proves what I was saying. We have very short and selective memories and tend to excuse things we wouldn't otherwise when "our guy" is in office.

Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office.

so did you protest if it wasn't the anti war left ? the anti war left that couldn't be bothered with that ?

if it was the anti war right ( lol like that exists) why aren't they out there for the illegal war in Iraq killing innocent millions ?

and this is what you said - not picked or taken out of context -

so why try to wiggle out of it now ?

Just like when you protested the Kosovo War. Oh right, the "anti-war" left couldn't be bothered with that. Because "their guy" was in office.

Funny how war is wrong in 2007...but in '99...it was okay. What changed, other than who was sitting in the Oval Office?

Edited by Lt_Ripley
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so did you protest if it wasn't the anti war left ? the anti war left that couldn't be bothered with that ?

No, because I agreed with it.

and this is what you said - not picked or taken out of context -

so why try to wiggle out of it now ?

Um...Liar...

Did you bother to read what else I said, liar?

Of course you did, but you are ignoring it because you are a liar. But that is typical for you, isn't it, liar?

Really now? Where were they again? Where were the mass protests? Outside of fellow travelers like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, and ANSWER no one could be bothered. Funny that.

So it stands, outside of a few true believers, no one could be bothered to protest. Because you have people like Bob (and probably you as well) who will say they are anti-war...but find ways to excuse it (I'm anti-war...but that was a NATO action, and bombing people for 10 weeks isn't really war...and people were for bombing...so that "war" was okay, etc, etc, etc) because "their guy" is in office.

Just like when Hillary gets into office, you'll suddenly forget and turn a blind eye to "torture." It suddenly won't be an issue anymore.

Edited by BrucePrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, because I agreed with it.

Um...Liar...

Did you bother to read what else I said, liar?

Of course you did, but you are ignoring it because you are a liar. But that is typical for you, isn't it, liar?

the only liar here is you. backtracking on your own words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the only liar here is you. backtracking on your own words.

Really now? Where were they again? Where were the mass protests? Outside of fellow travelers like Noam Chomsky, Edward Said, and ANSWER no one could be bothered. Funny that.

Just like you and Bob couldn't be bothered, just like you still excuse it!

"I'm Anti-War! But that was a NATO action...and umm...well...umm...it wasn't called a war...so umm...it was okay."

Proving my point that when it's your guy in office, your memory and outrage will become very selective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just like you and Bob couldn't be bothered, just like you still excuse it!

"I'm Anti-War! But that was a NATO action...and umm...well...umm...it wasn't called a war...so umm...it was okay."

Proving my point that when it's your guy in office, your memory and outrage will become very selective.

I never said it was OK. IMO there were War Crimes committed. The civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia was purposely targeted.

Please stop putting words in people's mouths Bruce.

Grow Up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said it was OK. IMO there were War Crimes committed. The civilian infrastructure of Yugoslavia was purposely targeted.

Please stop putting words in people's mouths Bruce.

Grow Up

You support it on one hand, but when called on it, you try to say the opposite. Funny.

Well , for one , it was not a War. For two , it was NATO , not just us. For three , it was minor in comparison to Iraq.

and most importantly.

Most people actually believed we were there for a reason.

Oh, there it is again, "He's not agreeing with me! He's calling me out! He's immature!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And where did I say I supported the NATO bombings?

Cause I don't see it anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
And where did I say I supported the NATO bombings?

Cause I don't see it anywhere.

You're right. I apologize. You excuse it.

Supporting and excusing are not synonymous, I apologize for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. I apologize. You excuse it.

Supporting and excusing are not synonymous, I apologize for that.

No excusing here Bruce, I honestly don't know much about what happened. Didn't follow politics then.

Edited by Bob26003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides Bruce, does it anger you that some people have moral beliefs and values?

I mean, what's the problem here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides Bruce, does it anger you that some people have moral beliefs and values?

I mean, what's the problem here?

It's not moral beliefs and values; it is the selective application of outrage.

Let's take your idol. He's anti-war right?

Well, except when it comes to the Japanese expanding their empire. Or the Khmer Rouge murdering Cambodians. Or civil war in Africa that kills over 1 million people. It seems he's only anti-war if it is the US fighting the war. If it's an anti-Western tyranny, then it's okay, even "beneficial."

It will be the same when it comes to "waterboarding." Do you think when Hillary Clinton gets into the Oval Office, Democratic Senators are going to grill her choice for Attorney General about his/her opinion on waterboarding and torture? Nope. It will be forgotten, as if it never existed in the first place.

Edited by BrucePrime
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not moral beliefs and values; it is the selective application of outrage.

Let's take your idol. He's anti-war right?

Well, except when it comes to the Japanese expanding their empire. Or the Khmer Rouge murdering Cambodians. Or civil war in Africa that kills over 1 million people. It seems he's only anti-war if it is the US fighting the war. If it's an anti-Western tyranny, then it's okay, even "beneficial."

It will be the same when it comes to "waterboarding." Do you think when Hillary Clinton gets into the Oval Office, Democratic Senators are going to grill her choice for Attorney General about his/her opinion on waterboarding and torture? Nope. It will be forgotten, as if it never existed in the first place.

Can you back up your claims?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you back up your claims?

For instance...

"It's well understood that the Japanese attack on the colonial outposts of United States, England, and Holland was in some respects highly beneficial to the people of Asia." -- Noam Chomsky, International Socialist Review, Sept 2002.

10 million Asians died during the conquest of Asia...

He even blames those resisting the Japanese for things such things as the Rape of Nanking...

"If there had been no resistence to the Japanese attack, they might not have turned to the horrifying atrocities that did ultimately turn many Asians against them." -- Noam Chomsky, International Socialist Review, Sept 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he cant back up his claims (BP that is)!! Who knows for sure who the next incumbent is going to be. No-one figured Bush to start with!!!

His calling Lt Ripley a liar, not just once, but at every opportunity shows the level at which he debates.

His comments are completely at odds with the rules for these fora, but then his paucity of real argument can be used as an excuse. <_<

Edited by keithisco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have plucked out a couple sentences ................. Ignoring context.

That Bruce shows nothing. :hmm:

Where did you find this tidbit of right wing dribble?

Edited by Bob26003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I might just drop by with a reminder of the forum rules.....

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Edited by Kismit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So.........what was the actual topic of this thread, anyway?

:rolleyes: Is it really so hard to show some respect for your fellow man? Ye gods.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I might just drop by with a reminder of the forum rules.....

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

I just read the last page this is outragous..how are you letting bruceprime break every rule here?... :blink: he gives this section a bad flavor...peace

back to topic ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.