No Wonder Libs Are Upset - The Surge Is Working

[red states rule]

Ben said that he who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither. When I said that, you indicated that terrorists would agree. Is Franklin a terrorist? Those are his words, not mine.

Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want

Ben would want to wint his fight - not lose it as Dems want to do for political gain

 

[red states rule]

shit... RSR would be calling Franklin a trator just because he was quite popular in Europe at the time....


in fact, people like RSR are why Franklin was pretty much shit on in the states after the war...

only in your hate filled liberal "mind"

 

[Superlative]

Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want

Ben would want to wint his fight - not lose it as Dems want to do for political gain

And your not wording it to get the answer you want?

 

[red states rule]

And your not wording it to get the answer you want?

They are

The only thing that matters to Dems is their power

MM proved that point for me many times

 

[Superlative]

They are

The only thing that matters to Dems is their power

MM proved that point for me many times

And Conservatives are concerned about.....oh I cant wait for this.

 

[maineman]

Once again you are wording the question to get the answer you want

Ben would want to wint his fight - not lose it as Dems want to do for political gain

like I said...I quoted Franklin.... you replied that terrorists would agree with me... were you implying that terrorists would agree with Ben, or that Ben would agree with terrorists, or both?

 

[red states rule]

like I said...I quoted Franklin.... you replied that terrorists would agree with me... were you implying that terrorists would agree with Ben, or that Ben would agree with terrorists, or both?

Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win

Dems want to lose for poltical gain

Is that to hard for you to understand?

 

[maineman]

Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win

Dems want to lose for poltical gain

Is that to hard for you to understand?

why can't you answer the question?

I quoted Franklin. YOU quoted my post in which that was ALL I said....and YOU said that the terrorists would agree with me.... which clearly means that the terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin, according to you.

defend that assertion.

 

[maineman]

Dems want to lose for poltical gain

Is that to hard for you to understand?

and why should I be able to "understand" when YOU incorrectly tell ME what I supposedly want?

 

[red states rule]

why can't you answer the question?

I quoted Franklin. YOU quoted my post in which that was ALL I said....and YOU said that the terrorists would agree with me.... which clearly means that the terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin, according to you.

defend that assertion.

Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists

That was my response to your question

 

[maineman]

Ben would not be trying to undermine the efforts of the government to defeat terrorists

That was my response to your question

why did you say that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?

 

[red states rule]

why did you say that terrorists would agree with Ben Franklin?

Only if Ben was acting like a modern day liberal appeaser and trying to undermine the efforts of the US government to win the war

 

[maineman]

Only if Ben was acting like a modern day liberal appeaser and trying to undermine the efforts of the US government to win the war

why did you say that terrorists would agree with a direct quote from Ben Franklin? You have failed to explain that.

 

[Superlative]

Ben would not want to lose the war - he would want to win

Dems want to lose for poltical gain

Is that to hard for you to understand?

Spin Spin Spin, its all you ever dooo.

Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you.

Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you.

Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.

 

[red states rule]

Spin Spin Spin, its all you ever dooo.

Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you.

Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you.

Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.

Sure Dems want their goals achieved

Surrender in Iraq to them is a loss for Pres Bush and more political points for the Dems

 

[Superlative]

Sure Dems want their goals achieved

Surrender in Iraq to them is a loss for Pres Bush and more political points for the Dems

Bush is doing just fine losing without the Dems help.

 

[red states rule]

Bush is doing just fine losing without the Dems help.

More support for the troops form the patriotic left

 

[Superlative]

More support for the troops form the patriotic left

peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!

Ya got me!

Partisan quickdraw you are.

Your ability to respond to every reasonable statement with references from your "bullshit rolodex" is remarkable.

 

[red states rule]

peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!
peeeewwwm!

Ya got me!

Partisan quickdraw you are.

Your ability to respond to every reasonable statement with references from your "bullshit rolodex" is remarkable.

You are not the first lib to call the troops losers - and you will not be the last

 

[Superlative]

You are not the first lib to call the troops losers - and you will not be the last

I never called anyone losers,

That how you debate, by running around in circles with partisan rhetoric.

Yer a hack.

This is what I said.

Dems want goals achieved, in succession to end a costly occupation (both monetary, and human) and that is a loss to you.

Staying and spening billions of dollars and human lives for as long as possible, with no goal in sight is ok with you.

Having a goal to achieve some kind of stability and democratic structure in Iraq, to you, somehow means the terrorists will rise up and kill every one once we leave.


NO REFERRAL TO THE TROOPS.

but thanks.



Basically Dems want peace in Iraq, and Bush hasnt secured the right man to lead yet, and hasnt gotten all of the Oil contracts lined up, so its surrender until the Conservatives are ready for peace.