Author Topic: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.  (Read 138 times)

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« on: March 02, 2005, 06:42:08 PM »
Excerpts from a speech by republican Jim Gibbons... member of house of representatives.   

you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.  this is just foolishness, and while there are plenty of liberal fools, this is a actual elected official that was saying nonsense to cheers.  in so many words he said he wouldnt mind paying to have liberals killed.  obviously he forgets even liberals are still part of the american population, and while there is a high level of digust (and/or hatred) among liberals towards the republican party I have yet to hear an elected democrat suggest that democrats should pay to have republicans killed.

______

"I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else," Gibbons said to another burst of applause.

He said if they lived in Iraq or Afghanistan, "Ironically they would be put to death at the hands of Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden."

Gibbons brought the crowd to near feverish pitch when he hit the hot button issue of abortion.

"I want to know how these very people who are against war because of loss of life can possibly be the same people who are for abortion?" Gibbons said. "They are the same people who are for animal rights, but they are not for the rights of the unborn."

He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.

"I say it's just too damn bad we didn't buy them a ticket," Gibbons said.

Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause.
 

*Jamal*

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
  • Karma: -34
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2005, 07:09:17 PM »
LOL
 

rafsta

  • Guest
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2005, 07:19:00 PM »
LOL baad choice of words...
 

Woodrow

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4329
  • Karma: 158
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2005, 07:40:22 PM »
Fuck a democrat, and fuck you too
 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2005, 03:57:08 AM »
Fuck dudes like him and his supporters.  8)
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2005, 08:19:19 PM »
you can't compare "liberals" to "republicans".  "liberals" isn't a political party.  most democrats with an actual voice and power are averse to calling themselves liberal.  other than maybe ted kennedy.

democrats will probably run hillary clinton who is basically a bush light.  compare her rhetoric or bill clinton's rhetoric to bush's rhetoric now or in 2000.  eerily similar.

the democratic party cannot claim a moral high ground.  they're comparably bad.  "liberal" is some sort of meaningless ideal.   and frankly, liberals can't claim a moral high ground here either.   there have been many honestly mean spirted and hateful comments flung in the direction of george w bush from liberals.  and he certainly deserves their ire and wrath.  but i don't think there is any defineable group that can assume the absolute high ground here.  it's almost childish to turn these arguments into moral arguments, which they are not.

finally, his comment was a joke. 

you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate. 

but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2005, 10:22:12 AM »
you can't compare "liberals" to "republicans".  "liberals" isn't a political party.  most democrats with an actual voice and power are averse to calling themselves liberal.  other than maybe ted kennedy.

We have to use some sort of naming convention to refer to things.  When this guy was referring to liberals I'm pretty sure he was also referring to democrats.  Most people mangle the meaning of words like liberal, conservative, neo-con, democrat, republican, but at this point the meaning of these words is so distorted it seems silly to argue that when making comparisons between two parties I can't use the world 'liberal' and must say the word 'democrat' instead just like its silly to criticize someone for substituting conservative for republican or vice-versa.  Its a silly semantic argument that is not applicable to online discourse.

democrats will probably run hillary clinton who is basically a bush light.  compare her rhetoric or bill clinton's rhetoric to bush's rhetoric now or in 2000.  eerily similar.

This often-used argument is always misguided.  Its been argued that Clinton turned democrats into republicans time and time again, but while both Clintons are centrists to call either of them Bush-lite or republican-lite is ridiculous.  People in general simply are not that similiar, and much of the criticism directed towards the Bush admistration concerns matters of execution.  If my high school football team uses the same playbook as the patriots its certainly sounds silly to call the patriots "high-school football lite."  The bush administration has a record of poor execution..... the tendency when speaking of politics to say "well these people ahve similiar opinions so they are the same" is foolish.   First of all, the Clintons and the Bushes certainly have different opinions on some topics, but also theory is nothing with out practice. 

the democratic party cannot claim a moral high ground.  they're comparably bad.  "liberal" is some sort of meaningless ideal.   and frankly, liberals can't claim a moral high ground here either.   there have been many honestly mean spirted and hateful comments flung in the direction of george w bush from liberals.  and he certainly deserves their ire and wrath.  but i don't think there is any defineable group that can assume the absolute high ground here.  it's almost childish to turn these arguments into moral arguments, which they are not.

I agree both parties have done things that many would consider immoral.  But you are comparing apples to oranges.   You said liberals have said "mean spirited and hateful comments" about GWB.  Well yes, that is true, average everday american citizens have said plenty of nasty things about GWB.  But I was referring to an elected official.  When an elected official behaves improperly you cannot justify his actions by saying "hey well joe down at the corner store said mean shit about bush last week."  But in this case, you have an elected official joking that republicans should pay to have liberal citizens killed.   A few weeks ago republicans were up in arms over dean's comment that "he hates republicans."  I thought his coments were inappropriate at the time, and was sort of embarassed that he made them, but he certainly didn't go so far as to suggest that liberals should be paying to have republicans killed. 

finally, his comment was a joke. 

yes it was a joke, that much is obvious.  But what exactly does that matter?  If I made jokes about 'blacks' 'jews' or 'spics' that were obviously hateful do I get to say "hey well it was just a joke."  There is no rule that says "you can say anything you want as long as its said in the form of a joke"


you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.

this is not news.
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2005, 11:48:43 AM »
Ant:
We have to use some sort of naming convention to refer to things.


i think it makes more sense to contrast "liberals" with "conservatives" than "liberals" with "republicans".

This often-used argument is always misguided.  Its been argued that Clinton turned democrats into republicans time and time again, but while both Clintons are centrists to call either of them Bush-lite or republican-lite is ridiculous.  People in general simply are not that similiar, and much of the criticism directed towards the Bush admistration concerns matters of execution.

it's not ridiculous.  i don't understand why "liberals" give the clintons a pass and hold them to such high exultation; however when you contrast the bushian and clintonian policies the two aren't that far apart.

let's look at some clinton policies:
nafta - this isn't liberal, this undermined environmental concerns as well as labor and workers issues.  clinton and bush are very close on trade issues.
media deregulation - you hear liberals complaining all the time about how a small group of individuals control the media; bill clinton was a big part of this, relaxing restrictions that dictated how many and what types of media outlets an entity can control in a market place
welfare "reform" - this was largely criticized because  of the limitations it placed on how long people can receive benefits
defense spending - privatization and the military industrial complex grew steadily under clinton as he continued programs started under g h w bush and dick cheney sec of defense.

the clinton administration is often blamed for the selling out of the democratic party to corporate america to boost fund raising.

clinton and bush use the same rhetoric, support the same agenda's, bush's policies are simply much much worse.  this is why i label clinton "bush lite".  it's not like clintonian policies starkly contrast with bushian policies.
 
If my high school football team uses the same playbook as the patriots its certainly sounds silly to call the patriots "high-school football lite."

of course not.  your high school would be patriots-lite.  your high school is the one doing the copying.  just like how many high schools have embraced june jones/ mouse davis' run & shoot offense, after it's successes at the collegiate and pro levels.

The bush administration has a record of poor execution...

the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution.  just poor policies.

But you are comparing apples to oranges.   You said liberals have said "mean spirited and hateful comments" about GWB.  Well yes, that is true, average everday american citizens have said plenty of nasty things about GWB.  But I was referring to an elected official.

people play hardball politics.  both sides get their hands dirty.   barbara boxer told condi that her loyalty to the administration overwhelmed her respect for the truth.  basically calling her a flat out liar to her face.

After a union rally in Chicago, Illinois, on Wednesday Kerry told a worker that "these guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group of people I've ever seen."

Kerry, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday to meet with Congressional Democrats, he told CNN, "I didn't say it about the Republicans, I said it about the attack dogs."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/kerry.comment/

and those are true statements.  but still mean spirited.

When an elected official behaves improperly you cannot justify his actions by saying "hey well joe down at the corner store said mean shit about bush last week."

i'm saying his policies are not inconsistent with his peers.  they all get their hands dirty.  many of these elected officials are not honarable people. 

But in this case, you have an elected official joking that republicans should pay to have liberal citizens killed.

that's a gross exxaggeration of what this guy actually said.

A few weeks ago republicans were up in arms over dean's comment that "he hates republicans."  I thought his coments were inappropriate at the time, and was sort of embarassed that he made them, but he certainly didn't go so far as to suggest that liberals should be paying to have republicans killed.

i don't see why you were embarassed with dean's comments.  let dean stand up for his own comments.  and again you are exxaggerating about what this guy said. 

he was calling the liberals hypocrites.  he was suggesting that people willing to die to protect a dictator with a hideous human rights track record would be dying in vain and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions.  this is a mean spirited thing to say, yes.  but it's not like saying "we should have them assassinated" which is the equivalent of what you said.

yes it was a joke, that much is obvious.  But what exactly does that matter?

it matters because you are overstating the significance and meaning of his joke.

If I made jokes about 'blacks' 'jews' or 'spics' that were obviously hateful do I get to say "hey well it was just a joke."

he didn't make a racial or ethnic joke.  he was basically making a "stupid" joke, as in "if these people are too stupid to realize they are risking their lives for a cause not worth that commitment level, why stand in their way"

and that is not a racist attitude.   your metaphor breaks down because it is not the same.

There is no rule that says "you can say anything you want as long as its said in the form of a joke"

i never said there was.  i agree with you there.

you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.


this is not news.

they aren't divorced from reality then.   
« Last Edit: March 04, 2005, 12:10:58 PM by nibs »
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2005, 06:33:20 PM »
Excerpts from a speech by republican Jim Gibbons... member of house of representatives. 

he plagiarized the fucking speech

http://www.elkodaily.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/local/news1.txt

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3033323&nav=168XX7U0

it's from some alabama chick:
http://www.bethchapman.com/thespeech.html

hateful and unoriginal.  lol!!!
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2005, 06:36:27 PM »
I'm not going to reargue this whole thing point-by-point but a few clarifications:

your high school would be patriots-lite.  your high school is the one doing the copying.

It depends on the point you are trying to make with an analogy.  My point was a) Clinton could execute better than Bush just like the Patriots can execute their plays better than a high-school team using the same playbook and b) Bush was the one who originally tried to copy Clintons centrism with his whole 'compassionate conservative' bit of course it turned out to be bullshit.  So yes if you are ranking people on their capacity for poor policy making then Clinton is Bush-Lite in that regard, but I was making a different comparison. 

the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution.  just poor policies

If that is your opinion then this point seems to be beyond argument.  But a few reminders:

1.  Iraq cost 200 Billion so far... we were told it would cost 87$ billion and we would make our money back in one year.

2. We were told the Iraqis would welcome us with open-arms... instead 2 years after the war is over we have 800 injuries per month and about a hundred deaths. 

3.  We were told we had to cut taxes to avoid an exessive surplus and to save us from recession... instead we've destroyed the value of the dollar and at least according to a few economists we've significantly increased the risk of a global financial crisis

4.  We were told the president doesn't believe in nation building only to later be told nation building is the centerpiece of his second term agenda.

5.  We were told the U.N. was wrong, the inspectors were wrong, and the whole world would eventually realize we were right about Iraq.  Instead we were wrong and anti-americanism as at a record high.

exactly what have they executed well?

people play hardball politics.  both sides get their hands dirty.   barbara boxer told condi that her loyalty to the administration overwhelmed her respect for the truth.  basically calling her a flat out liar to her face.

Many would argue that statement is grounded in truth.  Of course even if it is complete BS it is a lot different than going out and gettin republicans all riled up about liberals being shot to death in Iraq.  If you want to read the recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine they have a lengthy article addressing the relationship between Bush and Condi.  Boxer isnt the only one in Washington to share that sentiment.  Same goes for Kerry's comment... calling people crooked or joking about sponsoring their death is a lot different.

he was calling the liberals hypocrites.  he was suggesting that people willing to die to protect a dictator with a hideous human rights track record would be dying in vain and deserve to reap the consequences of their actions.  this is a mean spirited thing to say, yes.  but it's not like saying "we should have them assassinated" which is the equivalent of what you said.

hence my statement that republicans/conservatives are divorced from reality.  I'm unaware of any 'liberals' or democrats that want to use themselves as human shields to protect iraqi insurgents.  democrats and liberals do not support the enemy.  to suggest they do is absolutely absurd.           

i don't see why you were embarassed with dean's comments.  let dean stand up for his own comments.  and again you are exxaggerating about what this guy said.


I was embarassed/upset with deans comments because given the pitiful state of our republican party, and the two party nature of the american political system I am more inclined to support democrats than republicans.  However, I agree with conservatives on a number of issues and I disagree with liberals on a number of issues.  Am I right in alll my beliefs? Probably not.  But if I'm going to choose to support the democratic party I'd rather not hear democratic leaders saying things like "I hate republicans and everythign they stand for."  I think its immature to think that your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and if that is the attitude of a democratic leader than I find that upsetting given my support of his party.

it matters because you are overstating the significance and meaning of his joke.


That's an obvious matter of opinion.  You seem to think the joke was acceptable because he was making fun of liberals who "wanted to use themsleves as human shields to save saddam and defend our enemies"  In reality, he was making up stuff about liberals so that he could say hateful things about the other half of american society.  There are no (or perhaps very few, but I'm unaware of any) liberals or democarts who want to use themselves as human shields to save saddam. 


he didn't make a racial or ethnic joke... your metaphor breaks down because it is not the same.

It is obvious that he wasn't making a racial joke.  How could he possibly have been.  But racial jokes are hateful, and his joke was hateful.  That was my point.  Its irresponsible for a politician to make hateful comments towards an entire segment of american society. 

you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.
but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.

this is not news.

they aren't divorced from reality then.   


Since when does majority opinion dictate truth and reality?  90% of children under the age of 6 think santa claus visits them.   Does that mean santa claus is real?   
 

Ant

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2142
  • Karma: -418
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2005, 06:37:16 PM »
Excerpts from a speech by republican Jim Gibbons... member of house of representatives.

he plagiarized the fucking speech

http://www.elkodaily.com/articles/2005/03/03/news/local/news1.txt

http://www.klas-tv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3033323&nav=168XX7U0

it's from some alabama chick:
http://www.bethchapman.com/thespeech.html

hateful and unoriginal.  lol!!!

lol
 

nibs

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1191
  • Karma: 1
  • aco forever
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2005, 07:25:07 PM »
Ant:
It depends on the point you are trying to make with an analogy.  My point was a) Clinton could execute better than Bush


let me clarify my point by restating it.  you started a discussion of liberals vs conservatives.   i was arguing that clinton was not liberal.  clinton is basically a conservative-lite.   hence bush-lite.


the bush administration has actually had pretty good execution.  just poor policies

let me say one thing.  bush's execution has not been consistent with his rhetoric, as those were lies to get him elected.  bush's policies have been  consistent with his agenda which has been pro-big business.  deregulation of corporate and environmental regulations.  smaller govt by squeezing out social programs and entitlement programs.  and the neo-con foreign policy.  we agree 100% that compassionate conservatism is a sham.

with that said, let's put your statements in context.

1.  Iraq cost 200 Billion so far... we were told it would cost 87$ billion and we would make our money back in one year.

it's in excess of 200 billion and there will be another $80 billion supplemental this year.  the cost doesn't matter to bush.  it's tax payer money.  they are currently tying up close to $600 billion a year in defense ($500 billion in the budget plus the $80 billion supplemental).  but consider how much of that money is going to defense contractors for weapons systems and the infrastructure costs of privatization.  about 1/3 of that money in terms of war costs go to contractors because of privatization, aka bush's base.  i don't have the numbers for the defense budget as a whole.  war is a cash cow for many. 
did you see bush's budget?  the tax cuts are intentional.  he's cutting all sorts of money in defense and homeland security, and very soon democrats in congress will push for a balanced budget, and the republicans will cave in, at which point they will slash all sorts of social programs and entitlement programs...etc.  why else do you think grover norquist loves this guy?

this is intentional.

2. We were told the Iraqis would welcome us with open-arms... instead 2 years after the war is over we have 800 injuries per month and about a hundred deaths. 

the iraqi's did welcome the u.s. at first in the shia and kurdish regions.  remember there were only about 140 coalition deaths and about 1200 injured when "major combat operations had ended".  the bush administration didn't overthrow saddam to turn over iraq to the iraqi people to do as they wished.  they had a specific plan and desire for how that govt and economy would be setup; and that is where things went wrong.  but they did get rid of saddam +, they did get 15 permanent military bases in iraq (perfect for staging bombings against iran or syria)...

there are alot of successes in iraq.  they simply aren't pleasant to the average non neo-con non defense contract investor american.

3.  We were told we had to cut taxes to avoid an exessive surplus and to save us from recession... instead we've destroyed the value of the dollar and at least according to a few economists we've significantly increased the risk of a global financial crisis

you're looking short term.  those economic projections are based on the current levels of spending.  once the tax cuts are made permanent the republicans will balance the budget and eventually pay down debts, by slashing spending.  the democrats are chomping at the bit to do something about the current deficits, but they won't be able to raise taxes (as republicans won't let them) and they won't cut defense spending or homeland security because they must look strong.

4.  We were told the president doesn't believe in nation building only to later be told nation building is the centerpiece of his second term agenda.

before 9/11, bush was listening to colin powell.  after 9/11 he was listening to cheney and rumsfeld.  powell is now on the golf courses somewhere.  i don't like the 9/11 catchall, but bush knew nothing about foreign policy before he took office, and we now know who is running the show.

5.  We were told the U.N. was wrong, the inspectors were wrong, and the whole world would eventually realize we were right about Iraq.  Instead we were wrong and anti-americanism as at a record high.

these were lies to convince the world that iraq had to be invaded.  without telling these lies you don't get the iraq war.  bush got his war.

look.  if you are judging bush's "execution"; judge him by his own standards and his own goals.  and you've only mentioned foreign policy, you've stayed far away from domestic policy and bush's successes at dismantling environmental regulations, corporate regulations...etc.  they are about to get these bankruptcy reforms through congress, this is a huge win for the banking and credit institutions.  bush is all about big business, and he's chalking up the successes on these fronts.

If you want to read the recent issue of Foreign Policy magazine they have a lengthy article addressing the relationship between Bush and Condi. 

is it online?

hence my statement that republicans/conservatives are divorced from reality.  I'm unaware of any 'liberals' or democrats that want to use themselves as human shields to protect iraqi insurgents.

not for insurgents.  he wasn't talking about insurgents.  he was talking about liberals that wanted to use themselves as human shields before the initial invasion when saddam was still in power.

if I'm going to choose to support the democratic party I'd rather not hear democratic leaders saying things like "I hate republicans and everythign they stand for."  I think its immature to think that your side is completely right and the other side is completely wrong, and if that is the attitude of a democratic leader than I find that upsetting given my support of his party.

i actually think you are taking dean's statements out of the implied context.  alot of democrats are frustrated with the current republican agenda which is simply anti-american.  anti-small guy.  if you look at some of the tax cuts debates and the bankruptcy debates it really seems like the republican party is mean spirited and contemptuous towards the american public.

Since when does majority opinion dictate truth and reality?  90% of children under the age of 6 think santa claus visits them.   Does that mean santa claus is real?

we aren't talking about truth and reality.  we are talking about one guy's attutude towards "liberals".  "liberal" itself is an insult with 50% of the nation.  i remember senator lindsey graham snarling something like "people that don't mind being called a liberal".  this is a guy with a girl's name throwing stones. 

if you make a statement expressing a particular attitude in front of an audience, and you are legitimately applauded...you are not divorced from reality.   you are firmly entrenched within and appreciative of the reality of the situation.

the problem is all these damned liberals trying to redefine the word "reality"
"a four letter word is going out to every single enemy" - kam
 

ARYC

  • Muthafuckin' Double OG
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 719
  • Karma: 1
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #12 on: March 06, 2005, 06:30:02 AM »
lol hillllllariousssss


 

7even

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11289
  • Karma: -679
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #13 on: March 06, 2005, 07:14:22 AM »
you wonder why i say modern day republicans are divorced from reality and are a party of hate.

but ateast 49% of the nation supports this.

That's the sad part about your nation.
Cause I don't care where I belong no more
What we share or not I will ignore
And I won't waste my time fitting in
Cause I don't think contrast is a sin
No, it's not a sin
 

Suffice

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2403
  • Karma: 18
  • Ain't no motherfuckin' llama!
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #14 on: March 07, 2005, 02:21:11 PM »
it's disgusting that polititians can get away with these kinds of statements
"You only live once, you might as well die now" - Slim Shady (RIP)
 

*Jamal*

  • Muthafuckin' Don!
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1215
  • Karma: -34
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #15 on: March 07, 2005, 02:33:49 PM »
it's disgusting that polititians can get away with these kinds of statements

By the way, all of you misspelled at least one word in your posts. Therefore we should have socialism where the government would provide everyone with equal educational opportunities. How about that? Vote Socialist!

Yes, it's time to vote Socialist.
 

Thirteen

  • Guest
Re: Republicans: Liberals should be used as human shields.
« Reply #16 on: March 07, 2005, 04:02:27 PM »
He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy.

actually all he did was agree with liberals because he states that they are the people that wanted to go to iraq and become human shields and he said they should go over there

this is like me seeing a black person that says he wants to go to africa and i say he should ... does that make me racist?

nice try ant... try a little harder to twist words next time