Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInMaine, Mar 26, 2008.
Rats are traitors nothing new here.
Yes, because it was Democrats who faked and sexed up intel and led us to invade a sovereign nation that never attacked us. Nothing new here.
And this little mini-rant has what to do with the topic at hand?
And here you are following ME around. Different when you do it, I suppose.
When your ally turns it partisan, rest assured it will be held accountable. Talk to him, not me.
My ally? I have no allies.
And I'm not seeing a problem here. If Saddam paid for David Bonior and that other lying rat McDermott to visit Iraq--considering that they came back from that trip crying about how Saddam was a wonderful person--then they're guilty of treason, or damn, damn close.
Then you have a very loose, convenient interpretation of the term.
By the way, how does one "cry about how wonderful" someone is? What does that even mean?
He also apparently has never read the Constitution.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
That's what Bonior and McDermott did, acted to aid the enemies of the US.
I'm sorry. Were we at war in 2002? I believe the fear-enduced resolution hadn't passed yet. Also, did you read the story? Oops:
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said investigators "have no information whatsoever" any of them knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam.
Like I said: Loose enterpretation you've got there.
"No information" is couching legal doublespeak and you know it.
Then again, your heroes are past masters at that, so I guess you don't pick up on it as quickly as you might.
Sorry, my fault.
"Legal doublespeak" from the Bush League Justice Department now? LOL
Is this where you fall back on "it's my opinion, so THERE" again, Poly-Sci?
I don't know, you haven't called me a racist yet, it's throwing me off.
Well, I mean, when or if you offer undeniably racist sentiment, rest assured I'll call a spade a spade. Simple, really. However, you haven't yet, so you're safe and there's no grounds for calling you one.
However, you have uttered countless neocon-man talking points, and you certainly seem to align yourself with PNAC foreign policy. You insist that's merely coincidental, but .... ah well, perception is reality.
Well considering the fact that we had a cease fire agreement with Iraq in 2002 based on weapon inspections and Air patrol of 2/3 of their country, would classify them as an enemy to me. Not to mention they consistently took pot shots at our jets patrolling the sky.
What they did is border line treason to me as defined in the Constitution. But I doubt they knew that Iraq paid for the trip, knowing that and still following through with a controversal trip would have been political suicide.
at "spade a spade". Does that make you racist?
I'd like to ask you something, in all seriousness though: you think I'm all neocon...is that because you don't understand what actual conservative/libertarian thought is, or because your own beliefs are so far entrenched, or is it just a handy bit of shorthand for you to dismiss people?
I believe I explained why you've garnered that perception for yourself. None of your conveniently leading explanations are accurate. Try the fourth option: Because your post history so closely matches those who signed the PNAC.
That's not even funny. God I hate...well, hate might be strong. I really don't like Bill Kristol, the sissy little prick.
Can't I be somebody else? How about Charlton Heston's ghost or something?
Don't make me read Ed Shultz. It hurts me.
And 'daddy bush' is another one I can't stand, btw. My favorite Bushes are the mother and Laura. Although the twins ain't too shabby...
Separate names with a comma.