Funnelling money back to the rich. Trump's policy.

[Ray From Cleveland]

WTF are you even talking about? You're saying that going to war for your country is the same as brainwashed rag heads that want to kill because of their religion? Are you insane?

They are totally different. For one, an act of war is where militaries battle to overthrow the other. Terrorism is the act of attacking innocents who least suspect it and totally unprepared. Military adheres to the Geneva Convention while terrorists put people in cages and light them on fire. They are not the same. One kills because of some words written in a book and the other kills to preserve their nation.

We don't have problems with people from Russia coming here and committing acts of terror. That's why you do need two sets of rules for granting immigrants legal status to be here. Even our FBI stated there is no way to vet all these Syrian refugees. But DumBama wants to open the door and let them all in supposedly for humanitarian reasons when his real goal is to make whites a minority in this country as quickly as possible.

Here is the problem: we on the right think that being in this country, working in this country, or even becoming a citizen in this country is a privilege. You on the left think it's a right of some sort. It's not a right and they don't have any right to be here. If they are here, it's because they are illegal or they were given our blessing to be here.

No, I'm not insane. It's the same. Either way you've been convinced to fight for something you feel is a part of you. What's different about it? One is a country, the other a religion. If you understood Islam you'd see that people see Islam as a nation anyway.

Terrorism exists because it's a way to win without having to confront a large army. The US has the most superior army, the British used to have. Jihad came back to deal with the problems of fighting a superior force, and the superior force LOST.

Terrorism exists because large countries like the US think they can steamroller smaller countries and take over. Terrorism is a reminder that there are consequences to actions.

If terrorism won, why are we not a nation of Islam? After all, that's what they are really attacking us (and others around the world) for. So far, nobody gave into them.

Their plan is not to attack overpowering militaries. Their plan is to sneak their people into our countries until they become a majority, and then takeover that way. In the meantime, while their minorities are in these countries, they will promote their idiotic religion to get as many natural born citizens to join them. They do it through propaganda, demanding rights, and yes, terrorism.

Don't believe me, just read some of the news stories around the country about these people: demanding they be photographed for their drivers licenses with a burka or other head covering on. Refusing to do their job because it consists of scanning pork items across the scanner to checkout at grocery stores. Even one story I read about where Muslim truck drivers sued their company because they refused to deliver a trailer full of alcohol and got fired. They won too! Cab drivers in NYC refusing to pickup passengers who have a dog with them; even ones who have that dog to see with. The stories go on and on.

Several years ago we had a story here in the Cleveland area about a murder. These two clowns murdered their cousin because she promised herself to an American. In their religion, that was a disgrace to their family. She was promised (at birth) to be the bride of one of her cousins, but was Americanized since she came here at a young age and decided she didn't want to screw her own cousin and have a family. Both brothers got away with murder.

You on the left refuse to see the man behind the curtain. These are very patient people. If left to leftists, they will overtake this country. They are doing so with the blessing of the Democrat party too!

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because it just may come true.

Winning takes on many different guises. In Afghanistan winning was kicking the British out, then the British out again, then the Soviets out and the current situation is one of stalemate so far, the future no one knows.

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

You say their plan is to sneak into other people's countries and take over. Is it? Do you have any evidence of this? The reality is that those people who have become terrorists but are from the country they attacked, are generally people who have become angry with their life and found fertile ground in Islamic Terrorism because of the anger from the Iraq War especially

Bush made MORE terrorist, he made more problems. He didn't create it out of nothing, it's been a part of US foreign policy for a long, long time, the green eyed monster eyeing up the oil in a region that struggled through industrialization for a lack of resources, suddenly finding itself having something the west needed in abundance.

You're reading stories in the press. The same press that the right has been criticizing for being as biased as hell huh? Oh, well now all of a sudden it's all true, and the bias is okay because you want this bias. That's not me saying there aren't problems with integration. I'm not demanding mass immigration. What I'm saying is you treat people as individuals, not labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists but not all Christians.

You say I refuse to see the truth? No, I always look for the truth.

What I see is the right picking and choosing to see what it wants to see and ignoring a lot everything else. Then having the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the truth.



Bush was able to stop further attacks? Really? How many attacks has the US and Europe suffered since? Sure, they haven't been major attacks, but there have been attacks.

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not insane. It's the same. Either way you've been convinced to fight for something you feel is a part of you. What's different about it? One is a country, the other a religion. If you understood Islam you'd see that people see Islam as a nation anyway.

Terrorism exists because it's a way to win without having to confront a large army. The US has the most superior army, the British used to have. Jihad came back to deal with the problems of fighting a superior force, and the superior force LOST.

Terrorism exists because large countries like the US think they can steamroller smaller countries and take over. Terrorism is a reminder that there are consequences to actions.

If terrorism won, why are we not a nation of Islam? After all, that's what they are really attacking us (and others around the world) for. So far, nobody gave into them.

Their plan is not to attack overpowering militaries. Their plan is to sneak their people into our countries until they become a majority, and then takeover that way. In the meantime, while their minorities are in these countries, they will promote their idiotic religion to get as many natural born citizens to join them. They do it through propaganda, demanding rights, and yes, terrorism.

Don't believe me, just read some of the news stories around the country about these people: demanding they be photographed for their drivers licenses with a burka or other head covering on. Refusing to do their job because it consists of scanning pork items across the scanner to checkout at grocery stores. Even one story I read about where Muslim truck drivers sued their company because they refused to deliver a trailer full of alcohol and got fired. They won too! Cab drivers in NYC refusing to pickup passengers who have a dog with them; even ones who have that dog to see with. The stories go on and on.

Several years ago we had a story here in the Cleveland area about a murder. These two clowns murdered their cousin because she promised herself to an American. In their religion, that was a disgrace to their family. She was promised (at birth) to be the bride of one of her cousins, but was Americanized since she came here at a young age and decided she didn't want to screw her own cousin and have a family. Both brothers got away with murder.

You on the left refuse to see the man behind the curtain. These are very patient people. If left to leftists, they will overtake this country. They are doing so with the blessing of the Democrat party too!

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because it just may come true.

Winning takes on many different guises. In Afghanistan winning was kicking the British out, then the British out again, then the Soviets out and the current situation is one of stalemate so far, the future no one knows.

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

You say their plan is to sneak into other people's countries and take over. Is it? Do you have any evidence of this? The reality is that those people who have become terrorists but are from the country they attacked, are generally people who have become angry with their life and found fertile ground in Islamic Terrorism because of the anger from the Iraq War especially

Bush made MORE terrorist, he made more problems. He didn't create it out of nothing, it's been a part of US foreign policy for a long, long time, the green eyed monster eyeing up the oil in a region that struggled through industrialization for a lack of resources, suddenly finding itself having something the west needed in abundance.

You're reading stories in the press. The same press that the right has been criticizing for being as biased as hell huh? Oh, well now all of a sudden it's all true, and the bias is okay because you want this bias. That's not me saying there aren't problems with integration. I'm not demanding mass immigration. What I'm saying is you treat people as individuals, not labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists but not all Christians.

You say I refuse to see the truth? No, I always look for the truth.

What I see is the right picking and choosing to see what it wants to see and ignoring a lot everything else. Then having the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the truth.



Bush was able to stop further attacks? Really? How many attacks has the US and Europe suffered since? Sure, they haven't been major attacks, but there have been attacks.

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

Sounds like you'd be happier in the middle east fighting with your muslim brothers against the great satan - USA and Christianity. Start up a go fund me to send yourself over there and I'll donate.

Sounds more like you don't have anything sensible to say and you have to resort to silly bully boy tactics.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I'm not insane. It's the same. Either way you've been convinced to fight for something you feel is a part of you. What's different about it? One is a country, the other a religion. If you understood Islam you'd see that people see Islam as a nation anyway.

Terrorism exists because it's a way to win without having to confront a large army. The US has the most superior army, the British used to have. Jihad came back to deal with the problems of fighting a superior force, and the superior force LOST.

Terrorism exists because large countries like the US think they can steamroller smaller countries and take over. Terrorism is a reminder that there are consequences to actions.

If terrorism won, why are we not a nation of Islam? After all, that's what they are really attacking us (and others around the world) for. So far, nobody gave into them.

Their plan is not to attack overpowering militaries. Their plan is to sneak their people into our countries until they become a majority, and then takeover that way. In the meantime, while their minorities are in these countries, they will promote their idiotic religion to get as many natural born citizens to join them. They do it through propaganda, demanding rights, and yes, terrorism.

Don't believe me, just read some of the news stories around the country about these people: demanding they be photographed for their drivers licenses with a burka or other head covering on. Refusing to do their job because it consists of scanning pork items across the scanner to checkout at grocery stores. Even one story I read about where Muslim truck drivers sued their company because they refused to deliver a trailer full of alcohol and got fired. They won too! Cab drivers in NYC refusing to pickup passengers who have a dog with them; even ones who have that dog to see with. The stories go on and on.

Several years ago we had a story here in the Cleveland area about a murder. These two clowns murdered their cousin because she promised herself to an American. In their religion, that was a disgrace to their family. She was promised (at birth) to be the bride of one of her cousins, but was Americanized since she came here at a young age and decided she didn't want to screw her own cousin and have a family. Both brothers got away with murder.

You on the left refuse to see the man behind the curtain. These are very patient people. If left to leftists, they will overtake this country. They are doing so with the blessing of the Democrat party too!

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because it just may come true.

Winning takes on many different guises. In Afghanistan winning was kicking the British out, then the British out again, then the Soviets out and the current situation is one of stalemate so far, the future no one knows.

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

You say their plan is to sneak into other people's countries and take over. Is it? Do you have any evidence of this? The reality is that those people who have become terrorists but are from the country they attacked, are generally people who have become angry with their life and found fertile ground in Islamic Terrorism because of the anger from the Iraq War especially

Bush made MORE terrorist, he made more problems. He didn't create it out of nothing, it's been a part of US foreign policy for a long, long time, the green eyed monster eyeing up the oil in a region that struggled through industrialization for a lack of resources, suddenly finding itself having something the west needed in abundance.

You're reading stories in the press. The same press that the right has been criticizing for being as biased as hell huh? Oh, well now all of a sudden it's all true, and the bias is okay because you want this bias. That's not me saying there aren't problems with integration. I'm not demanding mass immigration. What I'm saying is you treat people as individuals, not labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists but not all Christians.

You say I refuse to see the truth? No, I always look for the truth.

What I see is the right picking and choosing to see what it wants to see and ignoring a lot everything else. Then having the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the truth.



Bush was able to stop further attacks? Really? How many attacks has the US and Europe suffered since? Sure, they haven't been major attacks, but there have been attacks.

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

 

[initforme]

Ray we went into Iraq to ensure no more terrorist attacks? Even trump knows invading Iraq was a mistake. He admitted it many many times. He is right. Afghanistan will never be won. The Russians found that out....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If terrorism won, why are we not a nation of Islam? After all, that's what they are really attacking us (and others around the world) for. So far, nobody gave into them.

Their plan is not to attack overpowering militaries. Their plan is to sneak their people into our countries until they become a majority, and then takeover that way. In the meantime, while their minorities are in these countries, they will promote their idiotic religion to get as many natural born citizens to join them. They do it through propaganda, demanding rights, and yes, terrorism.

Don't believe me, just read some of the news stories around the country about these people: demanding they be photographed for their drivers licenses with a burka or other head covering on. Refusing to do their job because it consists of scanning pork items across the scanner to checkout at grocery stores. Even one story I read about where Muslim truck drivers sued their company because they refused to deliver a trailer full of alcohol and got fired. They won too! Cab drivers in NYC refusing to pickup passengers who have a dog with them; even ones who have that dog to see with. The stories go on and on.

Several years ago we had a story here in the Cleveland area about a murder. These two clowns murdered their cousin because she promised herself to an American. In their religion, that was a disgrace to their family. She was promised (at birth) to be the bride of one of her cousins, but was Americanized since she came here at a young age and decided she didn't want to screw her own cousin and have a family. Both brothers got away with murder.

You on the left refuse to see the man behind the curtain. These are very patient people. If left to leftists, they will overtake this country. They are doing so with the blessing of the Democrat party too!

As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for, because it just may come true.

Winning takes on many different guises. In Afghanistan winning was kicking the British out, then the British out again, then the Soviets out and the current situation is one of stalemate so far, the future no one knows.

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

You say their plan is to sneak into other people's countries and take over. Is it? Do you have any evidence of this? The reality is that those people who have become terrorists but are from the country they attacked, are generally people who have become angry with their life and found fertile ground in Islamic Terrorism because of the anger from the Iraq War especially

Bush made MORE terrorist, he made more problems. He didn't create it out of nothing, it's been a part of US foreign policy for a long, long time, the green eyed monster eyeing up the oil in a region that struggled through industrialization for a lack of resources, suddenly finding itself having something the west needed in abundance.

You're reading stories in the press. The same press that the right has been criticizing for being as biased as hell huh? Oh, well now all of a sudden it's all true, and the bias is okay because you want this bias. That's not me saying there aren't problems with integration. I'm not demanding mass immigration. What I'm saying is you treat people as individuals, not labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists but not all Christians.

You say I refuse to see the truth? No, I always look for the truth.

What I see is the right picking and choosing to see what it wants to see and ignoring a lot everything else. Then having the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the truth.



Bush was able to stop further attacks? Really? How many attacks has the US and Europe suffered since? Sure, they haven't been major attacks, but there have been attacks.

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ray we went into Iraq to ensure no more terrorist attacks? Even trump knows invading Iraq was a mistake. He admitted it many many times. He is right. Afghanistan will never be won. The Russians found that out....

Well then, I guess we will just get out of Afghanistan and let the terrorists organize, plan and set up training camps for the next time they want to pull another 911. Can't do anything about it, right?

 

[initforme]

Nope. But it is one god awful mess.....and I don't believe it is going to be straightened out. However, we at least will keep trying as I do believe our military is the biggest and strongest in the world. In our last five graduating classes we have had a total of 3 kids enlisting which for graduating classes of about 80 that's good for us.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Winning takes on many different guises. In Afghanistan winning was kicking the British out, then the British out again, then the Soviets out and the current situation is one of stalemate so far, the future no one knows.

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

You say their plan is to sneak into other people's countries and take over. Is it? Do you have any evidence of this? The reality is that those people who have become terrorists but are from the country they attacked, are generally people who have become angry with their life and found fertile ground in Islamic Terrorism because of the anger from the Iraq War especially

Bush made MORE terrorist, he made more problems. He didn't create it out of nothing, it's been a part of US foreign policy for a long, long time, the green eyed monster eyeing up the oil in a region that struggled through industrialization for a lack of resources, suddenly finding itself having something the west needed in abundance.

You're reading stories in the press. The same press that the right has been criticizing for being as biased as hell huh? Oh, well now all of a sudden it's all true, and the bias is okay because you want this bias. That's not me saying there aren't problems with integration. I'm not demanding mass immigration. What I'm saying is you treat people as individuals, not labeling all Muslims as potential terrorists but not all Christians.

You say I refuse to see the truth? No, I always look for the truth.

What I see is the right picking and choosing to see what it wants to see and ignoring a lot everything else. Then having the nerve to tell me that I'm not seeing the truth.



Bush was able to stop further attacks? Really? How many attacks has the US and Europe suffered since? Sure, they haven't been major attacks, but there have been attacks.

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Generally people resort to terrorism because they're not strong enough to fight on the battlefield face to face. It's not logical to fight face to face when defeat is certain, so you resort to guerrilla tactics. Of course a country like the US, strong and powerful want to play by the traditional rules because these rules benefit the USA. So anyone who uses other "rules" or doesn't follow the rules the US wants, is then labelled as something negative.

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

Terrorism was increasing under Bush. Lots of things were increasing under Bush and then OBAMA (you know, that's his name). A president doesn't have the chance to stop this from happening. A president can't change history and make things better by correcting the mistakes of his predecessor.

Bush signed the pull out order from Iraq, not Obama. So don't try with that lame argument.

No, Bush was the best thing for terrorists. Seeing as A) he invaded Iraq. B) disbanded the Iraqi police and army and they had no jobs to go to other than the insurgency. C) continuing with a failed and ridiculous policy in Iraq for his whole time there. D) Signing an order for the next president to carry out.

He gave Iran billions of dollars back. Oh no, giving a country that hates the US because of too much interference back its own money, shock horror. Come off it, the Saudis also put money up for attacking the US and Bush was reaaaaaal friendly with them. Obama was attempting to do something that wouldn't work because the right will always make things worse, by trying to make Islam the common enemy. Obama didn't make that happen, he was just trying to pick up the pieces. Trump will just throw another baseball at it.

Yes, the US is about oil. Why? Because the US say "oh, oil is cheap, so we don't need renewable energy" and then oil shoots up and then you complain because things cost too much but did nothing about it.

I wasn't complaining about the price of oil. In fact I've lived in countries where oil is far, far more expensive and where change can happen for the better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ray we went into Iraq to ensure no more terrorist attacks? Even trump knows invading Iraq was a mistake. He admitted it many many times. He is right. Afghanistan will never be won. The Russians found that out....

Well then, I guess we will just get out of Afghanistan and let the terrorists organize, plan and set up training camps for the next time they want to pull another 911. Can't do anything about it, right?

How about stop the reasons for having the terrorists in the first place?

US foreign policy has been one of the upmost arrogance. If you think you rule the world, then people will fight back at you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Outside 911, what successful attacks were there the rest of the Bush's two terms? Now ask yourself how many DumBama has racked up? And you say you always look for the truth?

Was it just dumb luck or perhaps, could it be Bush did know what he was doing when it came to protecting our country? Tough thing for you to admit I understand.

Sorry history has proven you wrong repeatedly. The terrorists could care less about Iraq. Sure, some might say they are upset by it, but do you really think without Iraq, they wouldn't be terrorists at all? Iraq is just one of their dozens of beefs the US. And if Bush created all these terrorists because of our activity in the middle-east, why hasn't Obama with all his drone attacks?

Uh.........yeah, I would say terrorism is something negative. Take the US out of the mix, and tell me what military the terrorist can fight? Nobody. They won't fight us face to face because they are cowards. They attack innocent people who are unarmed and unprepared for such attacks. They hide among their women and children so they too get killed in any of our retaliations. Like Democrats, they are hypocrites. All this talk about 72 virgins, and they do whatever they can to avoid meeting them. After all, we'll be happy to send them all to their holy land if that's what they think.

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

Terrorism was increasing under Bush. Lots of things were increasing under Bush and then OBAMA (you know, that's his name). A president doesn't have the chance to stop this from happening. A president can't change history and make things better by correcting the mistakes of his predecessor.

Bush signed the pull out order from Iraq, not Obama. So don't try with that lame argument.

No, Bush was the best thing for terrorists. Seeing as A) he invaded Iraq. B) disbanded the Iraqi police and army and they had no jobs to go to other than the insurgency. C) continuing with a failed and ridiculous policy in Iraq for his whole time there. D) Signing an order for the next president to carry out.

He gave Iran billions of dollars back. Oh no, giving a country that hates the US because of too much interference back its own money, shock horror. Come off it, the Saudis also put money up for attacking the US and Bush was reaaaaaal friendly with them. Obama was attempting to do something that wouldn't work because the right will always make things worse, by trying to make Islam the common enemy. Obama didn't make that happen, he was just trying to pick up the pieces. Trump will just throw another baseball at it.

Yes, the US is about oil. Why? Because the US say "oh, oil is cheap, so we don't need renewable energy" and then oil shoots up and then you complain because things cost too much but did nothing about it.

I wasn't complaining about the price of oil. In fact I've lived in countries where oil is far, far more expensive and where change can happen for the better.

Over priced alternative energy would put this country in a depression we would never be able to get out of. But even if we could, do you know how many products we use on a daily basis that requires oil? Next time you go out for a ride in your car, think of all the oil it takes to make that asphalt on the roads your drive on. Look at your car tires, what do you think they are made of? That's right, the same product that makes the shingles on the roof of your home and garage.

And don't give me that worn out excuse It's Bush's fault. No President has to honor the will of the previous President. DumBama could have changed that Iraq agreement almost effortlessly. The only reason you on the left bring up Bush is because Iraq was a complete disaster orchestrated by your big-eared bozo. Watch and see if Trump honors our agreement with Iran. That's what a real President does.

 

[initforme]

Face facts..simp!ly face them even Donnie trumper said a ton of times Iraq was a mistake. Done deal. Now its worse and frankly a lot of GOP folk agree. And they are correct.

 

[initforme]

Ray its OK to slam your country. Try it. Its great.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Face facts..simp!ly face them even Donnie trumper said a ton of times Iraq was a mistake. Done deal. Now its worse and frankly a lot of GOP folk agree. And they are correct.

The only reason it's worse now is because of DumBama, not Bush.

 

[easyt65]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

 

[frigidweirdo]

I see you've limited this to Bush's terms.

Well, now you've asked. London and Madrid. Two big terror attacks. Do you not remember those?

Both directly connected with the invasion of Iraq, the British went, the Spanish half went and then pulled out once the socialists took office.

The 2002 LAX airport shooting.
An attack in the Philippines that killed a US green beret.
Faylaka Island attack in Kuwait, killed one US Marine.
2007 Glasgow Airport attack.

Oh, and the whole fuck up in Iraq.

Bush didn't protect the country. Bush made more Islamic terrorists, he made more hatred for America, he made problems for the next 50 years or more. He made our lives a lot more dangerous. Iraq will go down in history as one of the biggest and most costly (in lives and money) fuck ups there have ever been.

No, History has not proven me wrong at all. Just that some people are willing to manipulate history for their own agenda. Nothing changes really, does it?

Terrorists aren't cowards, they know their limitations and they're working within them. You call them cowards? Are the US not cowards? Invade China? Russia? Hell no, they won't go anywhere near these countries. They'll invade Iraq, Afghanistan, poor countries with not very good armies. Oh, that's so brave. The whole "you're yellow" thing is for those bullies who try and make themselves someone in the world by bullying. Sorry, i don't buy it.

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

Terrorism was increasing under Bush. Lots of things were increasing under Bush and then OBAMA (you know, that's his name). A president doesn't have the chance to stop this from happening. A president can't change history and make things better by correcting the mistakes of his predecessor.

Bush signed the pull out order from Iraq, not Obama. So don't try with that lame argument.

No, Bush was the best thing for terrorists. Seeing as A) he invaded Iraq. B) disbanded the Iraqi police and army and they had no jobs to go to other than the insurgency. C) continuing with a failed and ridiculous policy in Iraq for his whole time there. D) Signing an order for the next president to carry out.

He gave Iran billions of dollars back. Oh no, giving a country that hates the US because of too much interference back its own money, shock horror. Come off it, the Saudis also put money up for attacking the US and Bush was reaaaaaal friendly with them. Obama was attempting to do something that wouldn't work because the right will always make things worse, by trying to make Islam the common enemy. Obama didn't make that happen, he was just trying to pick up the pieces. Trump will just throw another baseball at it.

Yes, the US is about oil. Why? Because the US say "oh, oil is cheap, so we don't need renewable energy" and then oil shoots up and then you complain because things cost too much but did nothing about it.

I wasn't complaining about the price of oil. In fact I've lived in countries where oil is far, far more expensive and where change can happen for the better.

Over priced alternative energy would put this country in a depression we would never be able to get out of. But even if we could, do you know how many products we use on a daily basis that requires oil? Next time you go out for a ride in your car, think of all the oil it takes to make that asphalt on the roads your drive on. Look at your car tires, what do you think they are made of? That's right, the same product that makes the shingles on the roof of your home and garage.

And don't give me that worn out excuse It's Bush's fault. No President has to honor the will of the previous President. DumBama could have changed that Iraq agreement almost effortlessly. The only reason you on the left bring up Bush is because Iraq was a complete disaster orchestrated by your big-eared bozo. Watch and see if Trump honors our agreement with Iran. That's what a real President does.

How would paying more for energy put the US into a depression?

World petrol prices, gas prices, diesel prices, 21-Nov-2016| MyTravelCost.com

The US is at 0.6 while the UK at 1.33, more than double. The US could easily put money into higher energy prices without having a serious impact.

I don't own a car, actually never have. The problem you have stated is an over reliance on oil. These things don't need to use so much oil, or any at all. It's just that because oil is cheap, people use it. Make it less cheap, and they find better ways of doing it.

No president will honor the will of the previous, unless they have no choice. This was an international treaty. You want the US to have the reputation for a treaty being meaningless? You think he could have changed a treaty based on US troops in another country that was fed up with US troops and US involvement in their country? Seriously? Jeez, you can make anything fit your agenda huh?

A real president goes around bullying other countries? Right, that's what Bush did, and that's why ISIS exists.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Makes you wonder if they're preparing for something

Yeah..Turning this country around be rescuing it from the black hole of liberalism

Around from what? Fiscally Obama is handing Trump mass riches compared to what Dubya left him. So you must mean socially. If you want to destroy people's rights and you think you can attack minority groups, then you are dead wrong. And I'll spend the next few years convincing those group to arm themselves in preparation for whatever you're hoping will happen.

" If you want to destroy people's rights and you think you can attack minority groups, ".....
HUH?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ray let's just admit the rich win and the hard working person cannot get ahead in america. I'm calling this country out.

Under Trump, the hard working will finally get a cut of the pie. No more layoffs and mass firings.

You think? How's that?

Companies will now have to choose between "consequences of moving jobs to other countries" and taking advantage of lower corporate taxes and keeping the jobs here.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Has frigid revealed to anyone when it was that Trump share his vision / policies that he has shared with us?

I am assuming this is the case, that he has 1st hand knowlege, as he makes it sound, rather than sharing his opinion as FACT...

As I've said. He's picking and choosing people to work for him, and they're people who have a certain vision.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

History has proven you wrong because we've been having problems with these middle-eastern Muslims long before Iraq.

Invade China, invade Russia? For what purpose exactly? What would we have to gain by invading those countries? What would be our national interest?

We went to Afghanistan because that's where the terrorists (who were responsible for 911) were. Bush went into Iraq to try and insure another attack didn't happen from yet another middle-eastern country. We went into Kuwait to stop Saddam from taking over more oil countries.

Yes, terrorists are cowards. They attack unarmed and unprepared citizens who have nothing to do with their problems. They are no different than the American scum we have in this country that attack our elderly who are defenseless against them. No different than sneaking up behind an enemy and hitting them over the head with a bat when they're not looking. Who else would use women and children to hide behind? Cowards.

Bush didn't protect this country? Yes he did. It's DumBama that isn't protecting our country. That's why we've had countless terrorist attacks since he took office.

Of course the US has been having problems in the Middle East long before Iraq. Ever wondered why? I mean, the Middle East isn't anywhere near the US, so why would the US be having problems there? Does the US have problems in Namibia? Er.. no, why? No oil perhaps.

Oh, so the US has problems with countries not wanting to give up their oil for the price the US demands to pay for it? Oh no, SHOCKING. Do you not see any problem with a country like the US having had problems in a region which has lots of oil and is no where near the US?

What purpose to invade Russia or China? Let's see, Russia has a shit load of oil, China has quite a bit. Why invade Iraq? Again, it's nowhere near the US. What threat is Iraq to a US that doesn't meddle in the Middle East? Did Poland have lots of problems with Iraq? No? Why not?

Ahhhh, you hit the nail on the head. "National interest". Oil, oil, oil, oil and did I mention oil?

Let's give you some facts. I'll back it up too if my internet will go fast enough.

Hugo Chavez, the man of the moment. The guy who got OPEC together and got them working towards the goal of HIGHER OIL PRICES. Against US national interests. US response?

Hugo Chavez: The man who raised oil prices

"So, he set out to revitalise Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and use it to drive up the price of oil by restricting supply."

The US response was to pay people to topple Chavez in a coup. Ironically enough the group which deposed a DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED LEADER (more democratic than Bush was at the time, remember only one of these leaders was elected by the popular vote, that was Chavez) was basically a group with a name that suggested they were there to promote democracy. (Bullshit).

"Chavez changed all that. At an OPEC meeting in March 1999, his oil minister, Ali Rodriguez Araque, was instructed to announce that Venezuela would in future respect the cutbacks in production already agreed, and would support a further cutback of 4%. Ali Rodriguez is now OPEC’s president, and the oil price has risen from $10 to over $30 a barrel. "

Yep, Chavez helped OPEC raise the price of oil by 200%. So the US tried to get rid of him. They failed ultimately. But later on the scale of US involvement was clear.

Then came the Iraq War. It helped weaken OPEC, without Iraq supporting Chavez and having a US puppet govt, OPEC couldn't control oil prices so much.

US national interests were money, money, oil, money, oil. And in the process they pissed off enough Muslims to cause ISIS. Wow. But still ISIS is good for the US, giving the right reasons to be "tough on terror" and all that nonsense.

Bush did not go into Iraq to prevent another terrorist attack. If you believe that you've been taken in massively.

Terrorists are cowards? How many civilians died because of Bush, sat in America with massive security backing him up? Seriously, you want a coward, Bush is your man. Terrorists target civilians who VOTE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEND THE ARMIES IN. In a Democracy the consequences of someone's vote can be quite bad, if you vote for someone like Bush or Trump.

Wanting democracy (of sorts) and then trying to claim you have nothing to do with the consequences of that vote is cowardly, don't you think?

And back to insulting Obama as an "argument" Seriously dude.

If terrorists kill civilians that elect representatives that send in armies, why did terrorism in the US increase so much under DumBama? He gave Iraq to the terrorists, and they still attack us. He gave five of our most important and dangerous terrorists in captivity back to them, and they continue to attack us. He gave the world sponsor of terrorism (Iran) billions of dollars back, and they still attack us. Obama has been the best thing for terrorists, so your theory doesn't hold any water.

Yes, the middle-east is about oil. Our economy is all about oil. Our economic freedom is all about oil. Our conveniences are all about oil. I remember when times were better economically under Bush and gasoline shot up to $4.00 a gallon. You people on the left were bashing Bush up and down for it. Well........if you want to have lower energy costs, you have to have.........that's right......oil.

Terrorism was increasing under Bush. Lots of things were increasing under Bush and then OBAMA (you know, that's his name). A president doesn't have the chance to stop this from happening. A president can't change history and make things better by correcting the mistakes of his predecessor.

Bush signed the pull out order from Iraq, not Obama. So don't try with that lame argument.

No, Bush was the best thing for terrorists. Seeing as A) he invaded Iraq. B) disbanded the Iraqi police and army and they had no jobs to go to other than the insurgency. C) continuing with a failed and ridiculous policy in Iraq for his whole time there. D) Signing an order for the next president to carry out.

He gave Iran billions of dollars back. Oh no, giving a country that hates the US because of too much interference back its own money, shock horror. Come off it, the Saudis also put money up for attacking the US and Bush was reaaaaaal friendly with them. Obama was attempting to do something that wouldn't work because the right will always make things worse, by trying to make Islam the common enemy. Obama didn't make that happen, he was just trying to pick up the pieces. Trump will just throw another baseball at it.

Yes, the US is about oil. Why? Because the US say "oh, oil is cheap, so we don't need renewable energy" and then oil shoots up and then you complain because things cost too much but did nothing about it.

I wasn't complaining about the price of oil. In fact I've lived in countries where oil is far, far more expensive and where change can happen for the better.

Over priced alternative energy would put this country in a depression we would never be able to get out of. But even if we could, do you know how many products we use on a daily basis that requires oil? Next time you go out for a ride in your car, think of all the oil it takes to make that asphalt on the roads your drive on. Look at your car tires, what do you think they are made of? That's right, the same product that makes the shingles on the roof of your home and garage.

And don't give me that worn out excuse It's Bush's fault. No President has to honor the will of the previous President. DumBama could have changed that Iraq agreement almost effortlessly. The only reason you on the left bring up Bush is because Iraq was a complete disaster orchestrated by your big-eared bozo. Watch and see if Trump honors our agreement with Iran. That's what a real President does.

How would paying more for energy put the US into a depression?

World petrol prices, gas prices, diesel prices, 21-Nov-2016| MyTravelCost.com

The US is at 0.6 while the UK at 1.33, more than double. The US could easily put money into higher energy prices without having a serious impact.

I don't own a car, actually never have. The problem you have stated is an over reliance on oil. These things don't need to use so much oil, or any at all. It's just that because oil is cheap, people use it. Make it less cheap, and they find better ways of doing it.

No president will honor the will of the previous, unless they have no choice. This was an international treaty. You want the US to have the reputation for a treaty being meaningless? You think he could have changed a treaty based on US troops in another country that was fed up with US troops and US involvement in their country? Seriously? Jeez, you can make anything fit your agenda huh?

A real president goes around bullying other countries? Right, that's what Bush did, and that's why ISIS exists.

Yes, they do exist, especially in Iraq now that DumBama handed it over to them.

Obama is all about politics. It was his agenda from day one, and it will be his agenda until he finally leaves the White House. Other countries don't respect our treaties with them, why should we respect theirs? If our withdrawal from Iraq would have been successful, you would have never known about what Bush signed yet alone give him credit for it instead of Obama.

Obama surrendered Iraq to the terrorists for one reason and one reason only, to get reelected; to stay in the White House for four more years. Forget about the people that were murdered by ISIS. Forget about the people they nailed to a cross and hung them to slowly die. Forget about the people they set afire or the children that were murdered right in front of their parents. DumBama wanted four more years, and that's all that mattered. Send the bill to George Bush.

 

[initforme]

Did I mention bush? Nope. The congress...bush...Cheney...were all wrong ray. Its OK to admit it. MISTAKE. But flag waving patriotic losers can't figure it out.