Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Must spread the rep around first, but kudos for digging up facts to put the hypocrites in their rightful place.
LOL these two contrasting examples are proof that Democrats have a more positive stance on human rights? LOL...you liberals are very shallow people. It doesn't take much to convince you of anything does it?
The rest should be easily recalled. We always stand for democracies or at least we have.
More rhetoric. If I had to google and get articles for/against, I could too. You got to do better than that.
For a change, how about providing your personal take on the subject, or you don't have any? Are you even aware of American politicians intruding in other countries' political affairs? Or, you've not found a link to that, yet?
O, RLY? I seem to recall it being the Republicans who argued vehemently against the U.S. getting involved in WWII, that is, until Pearl Harbor got bombed. Until then it was, screw the Jews and homos and gypsies being gassed and starved to death. Yup, real humanitarians those Republicans.
Quote:
Churchill: “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.”
Much is not all and the whole country was war weary after WWI. It took obvious threats before people would finally accept another world war must be fought. That's how it goes in free countries. That's why freedom isn't free is constantly repeated by those that help us keep our freedoms. They get to see how much it cost first hand.
LOL these two contrasting examples are proof that Democrats have a more positive stance on human rights? LOL...you liberals are very shallow people. It doesn't take much to convince you of anything does it?
Is it just a habit of yours to attack other posters when you're left with no argument to counter on the matter at hand?
You don't know me, and to call me shallow tells me a lot about how you go about your business. I could easily return the favor but that would make me no different than you. However, by using distraction and the way you placed your "argument", it appears you're just fine being shallow. Unless you have something to contribute for/against the statements jill61 had provided. Bring that up, not your frustrations and ego.
More rhetoric. If I had to google and get articles for/against, I could too. You got to do better than that.
For a change, how about providing your personal take on the subject, or you don't have any? Are you even aware of American politicians intruding in other countries' political affairs? Or, you've not found a link to that, yet?
Yeah yeah I googled all those from the same website... Just more proof to show some peoples partisan hackery clouds their judgment beyond repair.
Is it just a habit of yours to attack other posters when you're left with no argument to counter on the matter at hand?
You don't know me, and to call me shallow tells me a lot about how you go about your business. I could easily return the favor but that would make me no different than you. However, by using distraction and the way you placed your "argument", it appears you're just fine being shallow. Unless you have something to contribute for/against the statements jill61 had provided. Bring that up, not your frustrations and ego.
Come on. Let's be honest. Jill61 provided two random examples to support her notion that Democrats have a more positive stance on human rights than the GOP, and you agreed with her. You can call me out for "ego" all you want, but the fact remains that she did NOT make her point. Anyone can pull two random quotes off the internet to prove a point. Why is it lost on you that a record of human rights position, not two random points was what I was expecting from her. The impetus was on HER to prove her assertion, not me. That's the part you fail to recognize. So yes, for you to agree with her does not shed a positive light on you, especially since you have not helped her prove her point. Get it now?
This is exactly what I implied with my previous post. It's a shame that I have to spell that out for you.
So, are you going to help her prove that Democrats have a more positive stance on human rights than the GOP, or are you going to critique my "ego" ? She made the assertion, and you backed it up, now prove it.
Last edited by AeroGuyDC; 06-25-2009 at 11:27 AM..
Number One...if Obama sounded like Bush..I would feel that at least we had a real man with a pair.... and a patriot in the White House. and since that isn't the case..I guess he didn't
Number Two..since when do we let nutjob dictators and extremists dictate how we respond to what is going on in the world. Tehran Tommy would have vomited something out of his foul mouth no matter what.
So, you're going on record to say that the United States is not the shining example of free elections? I ask you: how many people were killed by our government for protesting the results? I await your answer.
Obama only needs to buy a farm in Texas and he'll be Bush III (I bet all republicans will love him)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
