The Ad They Don't Want You to See

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.[/quote]

Oh yeah, oh yeah, oh yeah…like Chimpy McHitler ever made sense in, like, his whole life??? Like Bush did it right??? Oh yeah, because Bush really, like, ever…"

This is my favorite quote EVER. I am going to use it even when the the subject has nothing to do with the president, the White House, or any related subjects!

44

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

Maybe because Bush was smart enough to fly under the radar? Obama’s dirty laundry is in the Boston Globe.

So, the question is, would you vote for Obama, knowing how he milked the system for $$$$ for his friends? Isn’t he running on character and such?

Wait, so your problem with the man is that he isn’t shady enough?

LOL!!![/quote]

No. You equated Obama with Bush. Since you wouldn’t vote for Bush…

45

[quote]GimpFace wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
GimpFace

Yes. There’s people out there that insisted Obama was Muslim because of his name. There were people that believed said idiots because they will believe whatever they have to in order to keep a black man from being president.

I dont believe Americans are dumb, thats like saying English people all wear bowler hats.

I wear one, but thats beside the point.

I do find it easier to swallow that there is a deep level of mistrust against non white people though.

[/quote]

The problem is that Obama appears to be milking his race to gain power. He arranged for gov’t funding for private contractors to build shoddy housing in poor black neighborhoods, and the contractors ‘supported his campaign’. Of course, who’d turn down funding for a noble project like housing poor people?

So, Obama milked his race and the race of his constituents (and giving them unihabitable housing — gee, what a prince!!) for government grants.

So, while most Americans aren’t racist, they DO object to the race-victim nonsense.

46

[quote]TornadoTommy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that… sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.[/quote]

Please. You can’t just throw in Somalia with Vietnam and Korea.

Over two years we lost what, 50 people?

As compared with Vietnam and Korea, who’s casualty lists are miles long?

Not to mention that history is considering Truman to be one of the best Presidents the country has ever had.

And the White House was under Republican control from 1968- 1973- which were the worst years of Vietnam. That’s an equal blame war, you can’t pin that solely on the Democrats.

47

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that… sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.

Please. You can’t just throw in Somalia with Vietnam and Korea.

Over two years we lost what, 50 people?

As compared with Vietnam and Korea, who’s casualty lists are miles long?

Not to mention that history is considering Truman to be one of the best Presidents the country has ever had.

And the White House was under Republican control from 1968- 1973- which were the worst years of Vietnam. That’s an equal blame war, you can’t pin that solely on the Democrats.[/quote]

So what, now wars are measured in body counts? When those of us in favor of being in Iraq point out that this is the lowest body count war in history, you guys wrap yourself in the flag and bemoan even one death. But here you are syaing “50’s not that bad, and can’t be compared with the others”.

The point is, all of the wars mentioned were started by the dems. That is a fact.

Vietnam was a purely democrat instigated war. Your worthless piece of shit murdering president, LBJ was part and parcel to the escalations. It was Nixon who got us out.

48

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that… sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.

Please. You can’t just throw in Somalia with Vietnam and Korea.

Over two years we lost what, 50 people?

As compared with Vietnam and Korea, who’s casualty lists are miles long?

Not to mention that history is considering Truman to be one of the best Presidents the country has ever had.

And the White House was under Republican control from 1968- 1973- which were the worst years of Vietnam. That’s an equal blame war, you can’t pin that solely on the Democrats.

So what, now wars are measured in body counts? When those of us in favor of being in Iraq point out that this is the lowest body count war in history, you guys wrap yourself in the flag and bemoan even one death. But here you are syaing “50’s not that bad, and can’t be compared with the others”.
[/quote]

Oh stop. The premise of both of those wars was completely different. Somalia was far more of a humanitarian effort that went wrong in Mogadishu. The war that took place in Somalia, and that takes place in Africa today, is always more about internal conflicts and civil strife as opposed to a first world nation attacking them.

Iraq was a massive invasion of a soveriegn state- far different that Somalia.

Nicaragua? Panama? Grenada? The First Gulf War? The Spanish American War? And they were on the same scale of Somalia, so if you’re still trying to use that there you go.

These are all wars started by Republicans.

On top of that, it wasn’t young Republicans in the street protesting and causing the shitstorm at home about Vietnam which eventually led to us getting out. And that murdering piece of shit Nixon escalated that war just as badly as LBJ, if not more, as well as invading (Seceretly, of course) other nations to try to strike the Viet Cong.

There’s blood on both parties for Vietnam, don’t even think that because Nixon got us out in his SECOND term as President that this absolves Republicans.

49

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that… sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.

Please. You can’t just throw in Somalia with Vietnam and Korea.

Over two years we lost what, 50 people?

As compared with Vietnam and Korea, who’s casualty lists are miles long?

Not to mention that history is considering Truman to be one of the best Presidents the country has ever had.

And the White House was under Republican control from 1968- 1973- which were the worst years of Vietnam. That’s an equal blame war, you can’t pin that solely on the Democrats.

So what, now wars are measured in body counts? When those of us in favor of being in Iraq point out that this is the lowest body count war in history, you guys wrap yourself in the flag and bemoan even one death. But here you are syaing “50’s not that bad, and can’t be compared with the others”.

Oh stop. The premise of both of those wars was completely different. Somalia was far more of a humanitarian effort that went wrong in Mogadishu. The war that took place in Somalia, and that takes place in Africa today, is always more about internal conflicts and civil strife as opposed to a first world nation attacking them.

Iraq was a massive invasion of a soveriegn state- far different that Somalia.

The point is, all of the wars mentioned were started by the dems. That is a fact.

Vietnam was a purely democrat instigated war. Your worthless piece of shit murdering president, LBJ was part and parcel to the escalations. It was Nixon who got us out.

Nicaragua? Panama? Grenada? The First Gulf War? The Spanish American War? And they were on the same scale of Somalia, so if you’re still trying to use that there you go.

These are all wars started by Republicans.

On top of that, it wasn’t young Republicans in the street protesting and causing the shitstorm at home about Vietnam which eventually led to us getting out. And that murdering piece of shit Nixon escalated that war just as badly as LBJ, if not more, as well as invading (Seceretly, of course) other nations to try to strike the Viet Cong.

There’s blood on both parties for Vietnam, don’t even think that because Nixon got us out in his SECOND term as President that this absolves Republicans.[/quote]

Man. You just have an excuse for everything the dems do, don’t you?

And who was it that Nixon murdered? I can tell you exactly who LBJ had whacked.

50

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
TornadoTommy wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that… sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

You mean in places like Somalia, Vietnam and Korea? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Democratic administrations were in control of the White House during these periods.

Please. You can’t just throw in Somalia with Vietnam and Korea.

Over two years we lost what, 50 people?

As compared with Vietnam and Korea, who’s casualty lists are miles long?

Not to mention that history is considering Truman to be one of the best Presidents the country has ever had.

And the White House was under Republican control from 1968- 1973- which were the worst years of Vietnam. That’s an equal blame war, you can’t pin that solely on the Democrats.

So what, now wars are measured in body counts? When those of us in favor of being in Iraq point out that this is the lowest body count war in history, you guys wrap yourself in the flag and bemoan even one death. But here you are syaing “50’s not that bad, and can’t be compared with the others”.

Oh stop. The premise of both of those wars was completely different. Somalia was far more of a humanitarian effort that went wrong in Mogadishu. The war that took place in Somalia, and that takes place in Africa today, is always more about internal conflicts and civil strife as opposed to a first world nation attacking them.

Iraq was a massive invasion of a soveriegn state- far different that Somalia.

The point is, all of the wars mentioned were started by the dems. That is a fact.

Vietnam was a purely democrat instigated war. Your worthless piece of shit murdering president, LBJ was part and parcel to the escalations. It was Nixon who got us out.

Nicaragua? Panama? Grenada? The First Gulf War? The Spanish American War? And they were on the same scale of Somalia, so if you’re still trying to use that there you go.

These are all wars started by Republicans.

On top of that, it wasn’t young Republicans in the street protesting and causing the shitstorm at home about Vietnam which eventually led to us getting out. And that murdering piece of shit Nixon escalated that war just as badly as LBJ, if not more, as well as invading (Seceretly, of course) other nations to try to strike the Viet Cong.

There’s blood on both parties for Vietnam, don’t even think that because Nixon got us out in his SECOND term as President that this absolves Republicans.[/quote]

Yeah and Bosnia and Somalia too! Oh wait that was Clinton, my bad…

Hey maybe if he pulled his dick out of Monica for long enough he could have done something about the terrorists before it got this bad.

51

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Gimp face, if you stick around, you’ll soon realize that some guys here speak “foxspeak” only; they laught at the same idiotic “french” jokes in unison, they hate libs (which is also a synonym for marxist, socialist, commie, gay and muslim) with a vengeance, and they have a masochistic longing for a strong state that takes away their liberties for nonsical reasons and sends their sons to die in various developing countries.

But I’m scared of terrorists. They’re not taking away my freedom- I don’t do anything wrong so there’s nothing to worry about. And we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them in the subways and back alleys of New York like an Arab version of West Side Story.

Those are homo commie words Scwarz, and I bet it stems from the fact that Nazi is in your blood because you’re from Austria.

Did I cover all the bases there?[/quote]

Pretty much, so let’s see…

Wow.
One snare. TWO chickenhawks.
Irish, you even nailed them down to the german-austrian- confusion stupidity. (“Nazi is in your blood because you’re from Austria” … “Don’t you have a burning weiner-schnitzel to worry about”)
How could you know that ?

52

I’m waiting for an answer to my original question: Who banned the ad and on what grounds?

53

[quote]lixy wrote:
I’m waiting for an answer to my original question: Who banned the ad and on what grounds?[/quote]

No answer for this? Is it just because of who is asking?

Who banned the fucking ad and why would they if the content was TRUE?

54

[quote]pat wrote:

Yeah and Bosnia and Somalia too! Oh wait that was Clinton, my bad…

Hey maybe if he pulled his dick out of Monica for long enough he could have done something about the terrorists before it got this bad.[/quote]

Hahaha oh wait a second! So Bushy McHitler can’t be referenced in relation to politics, but you’re really gonna bring out Clinton’s BJ?

So if a president has sex in the white house, obviously he doesn’t have time for foreign policy and wars… good thing Presidents are all bachelors…

wait a second…

55

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Man. You just have an excuse for everything the dems do, don’t you?

And who was it that Nixon murdered? I can tell you exactly who LBJ had whacked.

[/quote]

That’s the best you’re going to do? C’mon now, you fuckers used to be better than this.

Nixon was a huge warmonger, probably the worst of the worst. On top of that, between him and J. Edgar Hoover, they probably had the most intrusive disruption of internal dissent America has ever seen. America was at its absolute worst during Nixon’s reign, and, surprise surprise, he resigned in disgrace.

If you’re looking for a shining example of Republicanism you fellas better head back to your Reagan Fantasy, because the Nixon one is ill fated.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
lixy wrote:
I’m waiting for an answer to my original question: Who banned the ad and on what grounds?

No answer for this? Is it just because of who is asking?

Who banned the fucking ad and why would they if the content was TRUE?[/quote]

It wasn’t banned, despite the Obama campaign’s best efforts.

http://www.americanissuesproject.org/american-issue-project-news/american-issues-project-calls-obama-campaign-efforts-to-prosecute-political-opponents-bullying-and.html

The American Issues Project has gone to great lengths to show that the content is true and they make a compelling case.

http://www.americanissuesproject.org/pdf/AIP_Know_Enough_Research.pdf

57

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Man. You just have an excuse for everything the dems do, don’t you?

And who was it that Nixon murdered? I can tell you exactly who LBJ had whacked.

That’s the best you’re going to do? C’mon now, you fuckers used to be better than this.

Nixon was a huge warmonger, probably the worst of the worst. On top of that, between him and J. Edgar Hoover, they probably had the most intrusive disruption of internal dissent America has ever seen. America was at its absolute worst during Nixon’s reign, and, surprise surprise, he resigned in disgrace.

If you’re looking for a shining example of Republicanism you fellas better head back to your Reagan Fantasy, because the Nixon one is ill fated.[/quote]

Better than what? You’re in some weird-assed zone that I can only read and think to myself, “he must either have some really wicked dope or he has figured out how to get the real absynthe into Jersey”.

America was at its worst under Carter. Not even a contest. Nixon resigned in disgrace, but Carter disgraced the Nation.

58

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
rainjack wrote:

Man. You just have an excuse for everything the dems do, don’t you?

And who was it that Nixon murdered? I can tell you exactly who LBJ had whacked.

That’s the best you’re going to do? C’mon now, you fuckers used to be better than this.

Nixon was a huge warmonger, probably the worst of the worst. On top of that, between him and J. Edgar Hoover, they probably had the most intrusive disruption of internal dissent America has ever seen. America was at its absolute worst during Nixon’s reign, and, surprise surprise, he resigned in disgrace.

If you’re looking for a shining example of Republicanism you fellas better head back to your Reagan Fantasy, because the Nixon one is ill fated.

Better than what? You’re in some weird-assed zone that I can only read and think to myself, “he must either have some really wicked dope or he has figured out how to get the real absynthe into Jersey”.

America was at its worst under Carter. Not even a contest. Nixon resigned in disgrace, but Carter disgraced the Nation.
[/quote]

I just can’t see how you’re defending Nixon on any point of his. Did LBJ suck? Foreign policy wise, absolutely. He was terrible. But Nixon was worse, and if I was a conservative I would pretend like 1968-1973 didn’t happen.

And I don’t have “excuses” for what they do- It’s what happened. Just as you guys defend Republican agendas, I defend the Democrats.

59

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I just can’t see how you’re defending Nixon on any point of his. Did LBJ suck? Foreign policy wise, absolutely. He was terrible. But Nixon was worse, and if I was a conservative I would pretend like 1968-1973 didn’t happen.

And I don’t have “excuses” for what they do- It’s what happened. Just as you guys defend Republican agendas, I defend the Democrats.[/quote]

LBJ was the father of the entitlement generation. He ushered in “The great Society”. He should get the death penalty for that alone. But - he also had JFK killed.

LBJ spent 6 years fucking up Vietnam. Go check out wiki - even though I hate that site - it offers a pretty good time line of the hippie movement. I would call your attention specifically to the years 1968-69. Those are the years of “the revolution”. 1968 was probably one of the most volatile. Guess who was running the show? Yep, your man LBJ. The aftershocks carried through 1969 but that was Nixon’s first year in office. you are going to sack Nixon with blame that should fall on the killer? I guess you could, but you would be wrong.

But, enough about your guy. I think his record speaks for itself.

Nixon fucked up with Watergate. But that hardly makes his foreign policy worthless.

He was the first President to walk on the Great Wall of China. You may not appreciate the weight of that, but he was the one who had the vision to understand that we might want to consider the potential market that a billion fucking chinese represents.

I’m not defending Nixon for the sake of defending him - you are accusing him of shit that was more the fault of LBJ than his own.

Nixon tore the country apart, no doubt. But Carter crushed every bit of pride we had. I’d rather relive a thousand Nixons than to go back to just one Carter.

60

[quote]rainjack wrote:

LBJ was the father of the entitlement generation. He ushered in “The great Society”. He should get the death penalty for that alone. But - he also had JFK killed.
[/quote]

Yes, the Great Society was absolutely terrible. Clean Air Act, the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, the Social Security act… all horrific crimes against humanity.

And he did not have JFK killed. That is absolute bullshit, bordering on wingnut lunacy.

I think I clearly stated that LBJ was terrible with both foreign policy and the Vietnam War.

But it didn’t just carry over- Nixon pushed it along himself by expanding the war. Again, there’s blood on both parties for Vietnam. Just because you don’t want to admit it doesn’t mean it’s not true.

And it doesn’t make up for Vietnam and the crushing of internal dissent against the Vietnam war. And Watergate was a little more than just a “fuck up.” Clinton “fucked up.” Nixon further destroyed the credibility of a government already on the ropes after it’s massive lies about the Vietnam War.

America has taken a long time to recover from the lies and deceit of the Nixon administration.

I don’t really care who you would rather live through again. What I’m saying is that Nixon hurt this country, and it’s reputation among its own citizens, far more than you want to admit.