Chickens come home to roost. From Monroe to the Bush Doctrine.

[Freewill]

Dude...just stop the stupid trolling. It stopped being amusing about 49,000 posts ago & is now just tiresome.

Same old tired BS.

Iraq was not a mess it was winding down in accordance with the Bush time table.

Afghanistan is Obama's war his surge, according to him, did not accomplish his goal and his surge lead to many more casualties then all of the Bush's years.

the economy? Well we can certainly see what happened there. The take over of both houses by the democrats and then them more or less telling Bush to sit in the corner and STFU. Pelosi as speaker and Reid as Senate majority leader who couldn't have forseen disaster?

As for American empire building what country has the US taken over and kept? None that see. Korea, Democrat, Vietnam, Democrat, Bosnia, Democrat, Libya, Syria, Democrat. Iraq and Afghanistan both sanctioned by the democrats. I just mention the democrat ones because Shallow seems to forget parts of history.

 

[Sallow]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.

Not a lie at all.

Conservatives were against the American Revolution, preferring instead to stay a colony of England. Check it. Back then they were tories and loyalists.

THEN, after the Revolution, they started the Whiskey Rebellion in reaction to Washington's (As in George) "big" government.

And it goes on and on.

Most of the wars started by Conservatives were against other Americans.

 

[bedowin62]

yawn

liberals are simply morons

always something negative to say; about their own country


America is a light and a beacon to the world
in troubled times the world's dictator's and thugs love a weak American President

that's why the world is in flames right now far away from Iraq and Afghanistan

 

[Sallow]

Dude...just stop the stupid trolling. It stopped being amusing about 49,000 posts ago & is now just tiresome.

Same old tired BS.

Iraq was not a mess it was winding down in accordance with the Bush time table.

Afghanistan is Obama's war his surge, according to him, did not accomplish his goal and his surge lead to many more casualties then all of the Bush's years.

the economy? Well we can certainly see what happened there. The take over of both houses by the democrats and then them more or less telling Bush to sit in the corner and STFU. Pelosi as speaker and Reid as Senate majority leader who couldn't have forseen disaster?

As for American empire building what country has the US taken over and kept? None that see. Korea, Democrat, Vietnam, Democrat, Bosnia, Democrat, Libya, Syria, Democrat. Iraq and Afghanistan both sanctioned by the democrats. I just mention the democrat ones because Shallow seems to forget parts of history.

Puerto Rico.
Hawaii.
Guam.
The Philippines.

Those were territories that were held.

And doesn't include puppets.

 

[bedowin62]

Dude...just stop the stupid trolling. It stopped being amusing about 49,000 posts ago & is now just tiresome.

Same old tired BS.

Iraq was not a mess it was winding down in accordance with the Bush time table.

Afghanistan is Obama's war his surge, according to him, did not accomplish his goal and his surge lead to many more casualties then all of the Bush's years.

the economy? Well we can certainly see what happened there. The take over of both houses by the democrats and then them more or less telling Bush to sit in the corner and STFU. Pelosi as speaker and Reid as Senate majority leader who couldn't have forseen disaster?

As for American empire building what country has the US taken over and kept? None that see. Korea, Democrat, Vietnam, Democrat, Bosnia, Democrat, Libya, Syria, Democrat. Iraq and Afghanistan both sanctioned by the democrats. I just mention the democrat ones because Shallow seems to forget parts of history.

Puerto Rico.
Hawaii.
Guam.
The Philippines.

Those were territories that were held.

And doesn't include puppets.

YAWN
leave it to the Left to make pointless points nobody cares about

 

[gipper]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.

Not a lie at all.

Conservatives were against the American Revolution, preferring instead to stay a colony of England. Check it. Back then they were tories and loyalists.

THEN, after the Revolution, they started the Whiskey Rebellion in reaction to Washington's (As in George) "big" government.

And it goes on and on.

Most of the wars started by Conservatives were against other Americans.

Another absurd post by SHALLOW!

Comparing today's cons to Tories, is well...DUMB.

The better comparison, though I will admit it is not a good one, is Tories and today's progressives. Both like big unlimited government run by a small elite.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

Liberal Theorem on Foreign Policy:

Obama sucks, therefore Booooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Liberals love freedom so much they constantly aim to take it away from people.

 

[kaz]

Pinochet was installed by the CIA

Repeating an accusation isn't supporting it. I am not saying we weren't involved at all. We were. But we did not install Pinochet. Certainly we opposed the socialist Chilean government and were trying to undermine them, we didn't install anyone.

Using money and political influence on a weaker nation, as well as spook Ops..is "installing".

Track I[edit]

Track I was a State Department plan designed to persuade the Chilean Congress, through outgoing Christian Democratic President Eduardo Frei Montalva, to confirm conservative runner-up Jorge Alessandri as president. Alessandri would resign shortly after, rendering Frei eligible to run against Allende in new elections.

Track II[edit]

Main article: Project FUBELT

The CIA had also drawn up a second plan, Track II. The agency would find military officers willing to support a coup and provide them with support. They could then call new elections in which Allende could be defeated.

In September 1970, President Nixon found that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him. As part of the Track II initiative, the CIA used false flag operatives to approach Chilean military officers, to encourage them to carry out a coup.[14] A first step to overthrowing Allende required removing General René Schneider, the army chief commander. Schneider was a constitutionalist and would oppose a coup d'etat. To assist in the planned kidnapping of Schneider, the CIA provided "$50,000 cash, three submachine guns, and a satchel of tear gas, all approved at headquarters..."[15]:361 The submachine guns were delivered by diplomatic pouch.[16]United States intervention in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your quote doesn't contradict me. I said we were involved in undermining the Socialist government, this says that. It does not say what you said that we "installed" Pinochet. You do know what "installed" means, no? You obviously used that word because it was more provocative. Unfortunately, you left the truth behind.

I personally have no problem with our efforts to block Marxism from taking over governments anywhere, much less in the Western Hemisphere. But your statement is just historically inaccurate, and you're not finding support for it when you search for that reason.

 

[Stephanie]

Liberals love freedom so much they constantly aim to take it away from people.

through the force of government
look how they stand behind ObamaCare forced on us by the FEDERAL government...and how if you don't BUY IT you get fined for it.

scratch a liberal find a fascist

 

[kaz]

Liberals love freedom so much they constantly aim to take it away from people.

They take it away, then keep it in a jar on the mantle over the fireplace.

Actually, I think they are confused by the "free" in freedom. They don't understand why if we have freedom they have to pay for everything.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Liberals love freedom so much they constantly aim to take it away from people.

They take it away, then keep it in a jar on the mantle over the fireplace.

Actually, I think they are confused by the "free" in freedom. They don't understand why if we have freedom they have to pay for everything.

Modern day liberal "freedom" means that they are taken care of in any fashion of their own failures with other people's money. Then wonder why they are called hypocrites. Then forget they are being called hypocrites or that they are so, and embrace the idea fully.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.

Not a lie at all.

Conservatives were against the American Revolution, preferring instead to stay a colony of England. Check it. Back then they were tories and loyalists.

THEN, after the Revolution, they started the Whiskey Rebellion in reaction to Washington's (As in George) "big" government.

And it goes on and on.

Most of the wars started by Conservatives were against other Americans.

ok then

Why do liberals bow to our government and demand our freedoms be taken, while cons fight tooth and nail against these efforts?


It's b/c you are not descend from the original liberals, you want an all powerful ruler. If not, you would not support obamas 'go it alone' routine.


millions of American dead lay at the feet of libs and progs, irrefutable fact

 

[Sallow]

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.

Not a lie at all.

Conservatives were against the American Revolution, preferring instead to stay a colony of England. Check it. Back then they were tories and loyalists.

THEN, after the Revolution, they started the Whiskey Rebellion in reaction to Washington's (As in George) "big" government.

And it goes on and on.

Most of the wars started by Conservatives were against other Americans.

Another absurd post by SHALLOW!

Comparing today's cons to Tories, is well...DUMB.

The better comparison, though I will admit it is not a good one, is Tories and today's progressives. Both like big unlimited government run by a small elite.

Guess you don't understand what conservativism is..

The "small government" mantra is relatively new but on closer inspection fits into the Right wing agenda of developing this country into a Theocracy.

Conservativism is an ideology steeped in the Status Quo. It respects tradition and abhors change. It is a mindset that likes power, hegemony, and uniformity.

The Tories were very much like today's conservatives.

As were the Loyalists.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Dude, you are a fruitcake!

 

[Sallow]

Repeating an accusation isn't supporting it. I am not saying we weren't involved at all. We were. But we did not install Pinochet. Certainly we opposed the socialist Chilean government and were trying to undermine them, we didn't install anyone.

Using money and political influence on a weaker nation, as well as spook Ops..is "installing".

Track I[edit]

Track I was a State Department plan designed to persuade the Chilean Congress, through outgoing Christian Democratic President Eduardo Frei Montalva, to confirm conservative runner-up Jorge Alessandri as president. Alessandri would resign shortly after, rendering Frei eligible to run against Allende in new elections.

Track II[edit]

Main article: Project FUBELT

The CIA had also drawn up a second plan, Track II. The agency would find military officers willing to support a coup and provide them with support. They could then call new elections in which Allende could be defeated.

In September 1970, President Nixon found that an Allende government in Chile would not be acceptable and authorized $10 million to stop Allende from coming to power or unseat him. As part of the Track II initiative, the CIA used false flag operatives to approach Chilean military officers, to encourage them to carry out a coup.[14] A first step to overthrowing Allende required removing General René Schneider, the army chief commander. Schneider was a constitutionalist and would oppose a coup d'etat. To assist in the planned kidnapping of Schneider, the CIA provided "$50,000 cash, three submachine guns, and a satchel of tear gas, all approved at headquarters..."[15]:361 The submachine guns were delivered by diplomatic pouch.[16]United States intervention in Chile - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your quote doesn't contradict me. I said we were involved in undermining the Socialist government, this says that. It does not say what you said that we "installed" Pinochet. You do know what "installed" means, no? You obviously used that word because it was more provocative. Unfortunately, you left the truth behind.

I personally have no problem with our efforts to block Marxism from taking over governments anywhere, much less in the Western Hemisphere. But your statement is just historically inaccurate, and you're not finding support for it when you search for that reason.

I know EXACTLY what installed means. Apparently it's you that's having trouble with linguistics.

When a foreign government chooses the leader of a nation, and helps that leader into power, that is INSTALLING a leader. Pinochet did not come to power by the will of the people. He came to power by forces beyond Chile.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You mean like in Libya?

The hypocrisy knows no boundaries.

Or how about Egypt?

 

[Sallow]

WOW, that's an incredibly big lie.

It was and is cons who never wanted to be the world police.

It is liberals that sent us to war, many wars, with millions dead, to get us involved in the whole world.

Now you lie and blame Bush and us?

Fuck you

Go find your history teachers and kill them, so they don't hand out any more piss poor edgimuhkatshuns to anyone.

Not a lie at all.

Conservatives were against the American Revolution, preferring instead to stay a colony of England. Check it. Back then they were tories and loyalists.

THEN, after the Revolution, they started the Whiskey Rebellion in reaction to Washington's (As in George) "big" government.

And it goes on and on.

Most of the wars started by Conservatives were against other Americans.

ok then

Why do liberals bow to our government and demand our freedoms be taken, while cons fight tooth and nail against these efforts?


It's b/c you are not descend from the original liberals, you want an all powerful ruler. If not, you would not support obamas 'go it alone' routine.


millions of American dead lay at the feet of libs and progs, irrefutable fact

What freedoms have you lost? Be specific.

 

[Truthmatters]

The United States has always had a complex relationship with it's expansionism. It declared some time ago that all of the Americas belong to Americans. And it could do that because of it's powerful military and economic influence. But that really didn't sit well with many Americans who favor the Constitution and a "limited" role in the world. There are Americans that want to lead by example and not force. The back and forth between Empire loving Conservatives and Freedom loving Liberals is one that goes beyond our borders.

The Soviet Union broke up some time ago. It wasn't cheap. The United States had to cushion the blow of the break up by spending billions. And for the most part this spending benefitted gangsters and ex-KGB. One of which who now heads the country. But they were reigned in by pesky treaties and agreements. Thanks to the Bush Doctrine, which says implicitly, that no powerful nation should ever be constrained by such doctrine, Putin now is engaging in reclaiming to his country what was lost when sane men sat down and agreed that the madness should end.

Bush, left a huge mess at the end of his presidency. And all of his domestic and foreign policies were warned against time and time again. These warnings were ignored or worse called "Unamerican". "You are with us, or you are with the Terrorists" Bush proclaimed about dissent.

Now, the chickens have come home to roost. And what do conservatives do? Apologize?

Naw.

They cheer the bad guys and blame Liberals.

its why they seem to side with Putin