Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The Hypocricy of the left.
King Tech Quadafi:
and actions in Haiti have much more ramifications for the US, ex. boat people by the thousands invading florida
iraq meant nothing to the us
Woodrow:
--- Quote from: King Tech Quadafi on March 02, 2004, 07:47:21 PM ---iraq meant nothing to the us
--- End quote ---
First it's a Secret American plan to steal oil, now Iraq means nothing to the US?
Come on!!! If you're gonna bash the US, at least stick with one thing!
Trauma-san:
^ Wait, I'm confused. I thought it was a plot to get revenge for the assasination attempt on Pres Bush the 41st...?
infinite59:
--- Quote from: I Just Wasn't Made For These Times on March 01, 2004, 04:13:58 PM ---Mighta misspelled that. LOL
Anyways... When the U.N. passed 15 or whatever it was resolutions saying Iraq was in violation of the U.N.'s peace treaty with Iraq.... therefore ending the peace, lol.... America goes to war "uni-lateraly" (with 50 other nations) to attack Iraq.
EVVVVVERY Democrat voted for it (the war)... but now that it's election time, and we haven't found any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, EVVVVVVERY Democrat talks shit about the president going in.
Now.
Haiti. A corrupt leader placed in power by our former, Democratic, President, gets overthrown by his people. EVERY Democrat around (since this is an election year) is saying "I WOULD HAVE WENT IN, WE NEED TO GO TO HAITI, WE SHOULD BE THERE, IF I WAS PRESIDENT BLAH BLAH BLAH".... Now, explain that shit to me.
Kerry & Co. are criticizing Bush, for consulting the fucking UNITED NATIONS! I thought they were bitching In Iraq we acted Unilaterally and should have waited on the United Nations? Well, now that we've waited on the United Nations, Bush gets criticized for that, also.
Which is it? This shit gets me disgusted to my stomach, how these fuckers pander to people. I'll tell you the simple answer, but you DONT WANT TO BELIEVE IT.
The truth is, the Democrats pander to the Black vote. They were behind the war in Iraq, every fucking one of them voted for it. Once they saw it as a chance to Attack Bush, they came up with "Oh, we should have used the U.N."... Now that the Haitian thing has came up, and Bush didn't go in without the United Nations, they see it as another chance to attack him. Now they're bitching that we DIDN'T go in, and waited to the United Nations. Why? Because the Haitians are black, and they think if they raise enough hell about this, they'll secure the Black Vote.
Also, interesting to note, they changed their tune, they all claim, about Iraq because we didn't find any Weapons of Mass Destruction. The logic they're exuding is that it was O.K. to go to Iraq unilaterally (which they voted for!) if it was over WMD's. Since there are no WMD's, Bush lied and cheated them.
However, they'll jump right into Haiti, or so they say (AFTER Bush has already made his decision public). Why? I thought WMD's were the stick by which you measured whether or not to act Unilaterally?
WOULDN'T THE CONSISTANT THING, FOR AN HONEST PARTY, BE TO PLAY THE SAME SIDE OF THE CARD FOR EACH CRISIS?
You know I'm right, but you won't admit it, so let the name calling, bitching, and fighting begin, I won't even read the replys to the thread, because it disgusts me to see politicians act like this, AND THEIR LOYAL SERVANTS DEFEND THEM.
(before you call me a hypocrit, notice, before the rage and blindness consumes you, that I didn't defend Bush at all in this post... now go ahead and defend Kerry).
--- End quote ---
Your right. I agree. Kerry is a hypocrite and a fraud. As I have stated before, I am voting for Ralph Nadar.
Trauma-san:
I don't have any dirt on Nadar. He's a much more stand up man than Kerry, I just don't agree with his beliefs, WHICH I CAN RESPECT. I can respect somebody with different beliefs... someone who's a total fraud though, I can't stand.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version