ATTENTION LIBERALS: Let's Unite The Country
Red Stater's INVITATION TO UNITE THE COUNTRY:
In the post below (Bush To Terrorists: "America is not Leaving") I offer an invitation for liberal/Democrat bloggers to Convert to Victory and unite the country.
Please read the entire post and consider this sincere offer to unite the country and reduce the polarization America is currently "suffering" from.
I will back-up my offer with this.
For every liberal anti-war blogger who "Converts to Victory" and posts his/her Victory Conversion story on his/her weblog, I will write and post a nice pro-liberal or pro-democrat story here on Red Stater.
If ya really wanna unite the country and stop the polarization (like you claim) here's your big chance.
If ya' wanna convert Red Stater to a Democrat, here's the way to possibly do it.
(Convert enough liberal bloggers to Victory, and I will write a new pro-democrat story every day and eventually it might just rub off on me)
If ya' claim to support the troops (or "troupes" as one blogger accidently wrote) here is your chance to support them without calling for their defeat.
RULES:
Your Conversion to VICTORY must be sincere and there are no "but's" allowed.
(as in... I support victory, ...BUT...)
Your Conversion to VICTORY must appear on your blog in your own words.
(No tricks and no games).
Then post your "victory support" in the comments section here at Red Stater and watch me struggle to say nothing but nice things about liberals and democrats.
Aside from saving your life and perhaps the entire planet, the above might be the best reason yet to "support victory"!
Disclaimer: Supporting victory does not mean you believe that victory is assured or that you even believe we are in a war, (or that you like Bush) but does mean that IF we are in a war, and IF victory is possible, that you support said victory. ie: Victory in Iraq.
(I can't make it any easier than that.)
Victory as defined (by President George W Bush) for the purpose of this offer is "A free and democratic Iraq that is a friend to America and a partner in the war on terror".
Hey, it beats converting to Islam ...or death!
-red
UPDATE: 12/21/2006- aaron (avandeg) at BOMBSHELL (odd title for a anti-war liberal) responded in the comments section below with about 2 pages of bush-hating rants which began with two words- "no thanks".
aaron/avandeg then went on to post over 20 sequential, one-word, sophmoric comments and attack me in the "Harry Reid on Life Support" post (below).
Thus, we have gone to comments by approval only.
So that's ONE hateful liberal who admits he supports America's DEFEAT, but ZERO for VICTORY or uniting the country. (so far...)
UPDATE: 12/22-2006
Please welcome OTTER from The Otter Limits (and several other progressive blogs) who supports the troops by supporting their Victory in Iraq.
You can read otter's comment below (see comments) and join me in having the utmost respect for his courage and honesty in standing up for VICTORY.
God Bless You Otter... a nice piece highlighting you and other democrats/liberals is coming in the next few days before I post anything else. (as promised) In the meatime, watch for the band OTISBURG everyone!
UPDATE: 12/23/2006- Please welcome DAVE at The Oklahoma Lefty blogs who says "Now that we are there, we need to succeed in Iraq".
I applaud you Dave and (as promised) I will write a nice piece on you and your blog as well as Democrats in general...coming soon.
I do want to warn you to be sure and put on your kevlar underwear... siding with "the enemy" can get you into trouble.
God Bless you.
UPDATE: 12/25/2006-Another progressive who joins us in uniting the country is Anthony from "Concerned Citizens of Today" who writes... "I do support the war. I do feel like we have done more good than harm. So, yes I am with you on this. I definitely support our troops and are very proud of them for what they do. Thanks again to any of our brave troops that read this."
I'm sure it's safe for me to say (on behalf of those brave troops) - Thank you Anthony...for supporting VICTORY.
UPDATE: 12/27/2006- And then we hear from Rodger... ( didn't bother to actually read my complete offer), who doesn't think we are fighting against anyone except innocent Iraqi's, that victory is not possible, and he believes Americans shouldn't support victory in the first place...
See his comments in the comment section here or go to his recent post on this subject where he says...
"US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail".
So, if we admit we are the bad guys... we can win.
Not so say's Rodger... not even then.
We can officially mark "Rodger" down in the "supports the defeat of his own country" category.
I wonder if Rodger knows aaron?
Maybe we should introduce them...
-red
posted by RD at 6:53 PM
AOL Sports Hottest Athlete
26 Comments:
No thank you. I don't need your help to get the truth out there.
Your anger is likely to kill you. Seek help. There are people to talk to out there about this problem.
#1- Thank you Stuart, I'll take that as a no. You don't support America in the war, i get it.
wow...sorry I had to remove stuarts comment for BAD language.
#2- avandeg, you mistake my having a ton-o-fun for.... anger? lol,
...ahhhh you libs crack me up.
maybe you oughta think about taking off the earmuffs (what's up with that dude?) while you are trying to listen and the blinders off when getting the news.(nice unibrow though)
I don't understand the "subtle nuances" of your comment or I am not sure what question you are answering with your comment.
The question in this post is will you support VICTORY for your own country in order to unite the country?
Your comment "no thank you."
is clear enough until you make the next statement.
"I don't need your help to get the truth out there."
uhhhh,
I didn't offer to help you get the truth out...dude, it's obvious you are not interested in "truth".
I offered to write positive pieces about Libs/dems and let up on my pointing out their hypocricy and the "rest of the story" that you libs want silenced (or ignored) ..."the truth" that you speak of is an elusive little critter for you libs. It's Selective truth.
You also said...
"seek help, there are people out there for you to talk to about this problem"
thank you, that's good to know... but i have some bad news for you.
They can't fix "stupid".
-red
Note: thanks to Ron "tater" White for the "can't fix stupid" line.
Obviously, this is a last ditch effort for you since 70% of Americans think that Iraq is the wrong direction. What you were asking for was my support. I assumed that you would be willing to drop your propaganda machine a bit and let some of the truth out when I said that I don't need your help to get the truth out. I think the context of the response is appropriate. I'm not sure why it's confusing to you.
Thanks for devolving the debate into ad hominem attacks about my picture. Steve Coogan is a personal hero of mine, so I'm not going to change the picture, but you've shown your true colors. I won't ever talk about how fat or stupid you are.
I'll support VICTORY in Iraq. Victory for me at this point would be leaving without letting another American die. I guess you don't mind our troops dying and getting maimed for a little country that is going to end up more unstable when we leave (whenever that is) than it was when we got there.
Here's some truths:
1) Almost 200,000 Iraqis have died since we started this "war" against civilization there.
2) Almost 3,000 Americans have died.
3) Between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqis have been significantly wounded and will have some permanent problem from this conflict.
4) Almost 30,000 Americans have some kind of disability from this conflict.
5) Almost 2 million Iraqis have fled the country since the invasion and many of these are living in squalid conditions in refugee camps.
6) Before the invasion, there was no al Quaeda presence in Iraq and no terrorism in Iraq.
7) This administration willfully and illegally manipulated the intelligence to start this act of agression.
8) No weapons of mass destruction have been found even with the administration's widely broadened definition of that term.
9) Most of the weapons that are killing Americans now could have been secured in the first 6 weeks after the invasion and prevented many deaths.
10) Iraq was chosen not to remove a madman from power, but for these reasons:
a) It was thought to be an easy target since it was weakened by sanctions and its military was decimated by the war 10 years earlier and frequent fly-overs and cruise missile attacks.
b) Iraq oil would pay for reconstruction and also wean us from the rest of the middle east monopoly through cheap or free oil from our new friends.
c) Reconstruction contracts would offer a big (war profiteering) incentive for all the administration's friends in business.
d) Nation building would give their cronies opportunities to place diplomatic/infrastructure management positions over the next 15/20 years.
e) Daddy messed it up. Bush Jr. would fix it.
f) If we do it right, we create an anchor hold with bases to keep the rest of the middle east under control - imperialistically
You want to talk about facts. How about them apples? Let's have a real debate instead of just hurling ad hominems.
aaron...avandeg...aaron, whatever.
it was YOU who began this entire thing with an ad hominen attack.
I didn't ask you to debate me on the finer points of war and republican this and republican that.
Do you want to unite the country or not?
do you support VICTORY (as I defined it in the bottom of the post if you would actually take the time to read)
YOU don't get to redefine VICTORY here... do that on your own blog.
Quit skirting the question with attacks on BUSH and answer the simple question.
OR can we just assume from your endless diatribe above that you support American DEFEAT in Iraq?
There are no ties in war.
Victory or Defeat.
why can't you just say it.
but to humor myself i will address each of your "points".
1- 200,000 is about 1/2 of what Saddam slaughtered in a single year but of the 200,000 you speak of, how many are terrorists or former iraqi (saddam era) amry and how may were killed by terrorists?
Surely you don't believe our soldiers go out looking for innocents to kill. if so, then this so-called debate is over.
I will not debate against lies and ignorance.
#2-#5, yes war is messy, it's not a political focus group.
#6-#8 wrong- life was not cherries and roses in iraq before we arrived. EVERY intelligence agency in the world and virtually every democrat including kerry and clinton said and believe the same thing BUSH said...so spread that accusation around a little closer to the tree there aaron.
#9- so you claim BUSH intentionally left bombs and possibly WMD lying around in Iraq for terrorists to find and use against BUSH and US troops? and you think I need "help"?
10- a-e, (you are SO organized!)
(lol)
So saddam isn't a madman.
Bush said this would be a long difficult struggle from the get-go dude... it was liberals who said it shouldn't take long and "are we there yet" after about 2 days.
uhhh we still don't get out oil from iraq aaron... check your facts once in a while.(for a change)
and finally, you claim we attacked iraq so Bush's friends could get a job? (lol) I thought all his friends were filthy rich and don't need "jobs".
aaron, you come on here and call me a partisan hack and then what do you do...
recite partisan democrat, moveon.dorg/airamerica baloney.
puhleeeze.
you prove the point i make in most of my posts... thank you for that.
-red
-red
Show me where I've attacked you. I said you were angry, but I think I have some facts to back that up. I suggested that you talk to someone to help. I think that's constructive criticism.
I haven't said you were stupid and couldn't be fixed.
I didn't make fun of your picture.
I didn't say that you wear blinders.
I didn't talk about your unibrow.
I didn't say that you won't listen to the truth.
I didn't call you a hypocrite.
I didn't patronize you by saying that you selectively listen to some things and not others when I don't know you or where you get your information.
I didn't put words in your mouth and call you a defeatist because you wouldn't follow my narrow line of reasoning created to marginalize the debate.
I didn't call your website an endless diatribe even though this description could be considered accurate by some.
I didn't claim that your facts were "lies and ignorance".
I didn't condescend to you with comments like "puhleeeze" or call your data partisan baloney.
I didn't dismiss each of your points with a belittling, "this isn't a political focus group".
Closest thing I've said to an ad hominem attack was saying that Bush was learning disabled and I think I can back up that claim too which makes it a fact, not an attack.
I'm glad we crack you up. That's why we're here.
aaron, you have come here and ranted about everything EXCEPT the post you are commenting on.
"slick willy" and john kerry would both be proud.
So, seriously...can i mark you down for victory or defeat?
whats it gonna be dude?
-red
I didn't call you a partisan hack. Those are your words.
1) So we've only slaughtered 1/2 of what Saddam did. We haven't even been there a quarter as long as he was. Does that just make us twice as bad as him? I guess if your metric is Iraqi deaths, I'll accept that assessment. Good point.
2) Another good point you make; how many are terrorists or former Iraqi terrorists? We'll never know because the military decide not to compile (or at least release) that information. Is it 10%? 1%? 0.001%? What would be acceptable to you? What would be acceptable to you if it was your family that was in the other percentage - the innocents?
3) War is messy. This is not a war. I can name at least 50 wars that all have 2 sides. US/England, US/America, US/N.Vietnam, US/N.Korea, N.US/S.US, France/US, Japan/US, Germany/US, Russia/UK, Iraq/Iran, Egypt/Israel. All wars. US vs. insurgents in occupied Iraq, no. That's not a war. US invading Grenada or Panama was more of a war than this. This is not a messy war, this is just messy.
4) Have you seen any polls, "Was your life better before or after Saddam was removed from power?" Every interview I've seen indicates what is happening now is worse. In the '80's, Baghdad was the most progressive city in the middle east. Debate that.
5) The comments I've seen (since there are no thesis papers by these politicians you cite), have all been, "Yes, Saddam is bad and should be removed from power." Show me a Democrat that said, "We should send an army in there and remove him from power." Link me to that quote by Kerry or Clinton or Edwards or Kennedy or Dean or anyone but Zell Miller.
6) British intelligence told us they thought the information we were using was not trustworthy and outdated. No other intelligence agency in the world said that Saddam had WMDs, except the ones that we sold him in the early 80's. Nerve gas is not a WMD.
7) I didn't claim that Bush left weapons there and said, "Hey! Use these against our soldiers." I said that he was negligent in not securing them when we knew where they were. They were looted in the 6 weeks following the invasion, but our intelligence knew where they were. We had other objectives.
8) I never said Saddam isn't a madman. My points were their reasons to go in before the war. I'm not saying that they all cam true. Most of these reasons are based upon false assumptions, or are just greed based. That was my point. Whether they ended up being correct is a matter of measuring how good they are at predicting. I don't care about that.
9) That was my point that we still don't get any oil from Iraq. This reconstruction should cost about 1 to 3 billion dollars, right? Oil will pay for it all? Wrong. Thanks Mr. Bremer!
10) I don't know any liberals that said the follow-up would be a cake-walk. That was Mr. Rumsfeld. Greeted as liberators? Flowers and Candy? 2 weeks, 2 months, I don't think 2 years? Sound familiar?
11) Rich people always need more money and they always have friends who want "jobs", but they don't want to work. Look at Michael "heckuva job" Brownie. Cronies are everywhere. You know it. You really want to debate this point?
Go ahead. Prove your point. I'm listening. I listen to everything.
I've told you my view on Iraq. I haven't beat around the bush or tried to slip out of answering your question.
Our best choice right now for both American people and Iraqi people is to leave. Pack up and get out as quick as possible. Less Americans will die and less Iraqis will die. That is victory by any definition.
Killing more Americans and more Iraqis will help your cause how? Why do you want Americans to die? Do you hate our military? Do you think they are just worthless grunts to throw in harm's way for some meaningless objective? You ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory? That's what you're looking for.
wow, you've got a lot of catching up to do aaron, where have you been?
1- you are trying to misquote me. I didn't agree with you in your false assumption that americans had killed 200,000 innocent iraqi's... i disputed it.
2-5...
you have no understanding of who is fighting who in iraq. go read my post "save the planet" or "Jihad Bowl"... then we can have a discussion once you catch-up on the enemy. (hint: it's America and the free world VS Islamic fascists from a number of countries... focused on iraq)
Your statement that we are NOT AT WAR is not only wrong and ignorant it is dangerous.
If you don't know that John Kerry said..."anyone who didn't think Saddam was a threat, isn't fit to be president' that's one thing, but to not know or admit that the large majority of DEMOCRAT US Senators VOTED on the record to support "removing saddam hussein from power with military force" is frankly laughable.
9- SO, you DO support going into iraq and taking their oil? make up your mind.
and finally, yes... the Bush administration was mistaken about how many iraqi's would dance in the streets.
So because of that... you support America's defeat?
I got your answer aaron..."DEFEAT AMERICA"... we don't need to fill your headphones with reality... go back to pretending that BUSH is the enemy...not the throatcutters and suiciders.
you might want to brush up on your islamic prayers however... with your attitude it might come in handy later.
-red
I guess I got your answer too. Red says, "DEFEAT AMERICA - I HATE THE TROOPS!" I've got it right there (paraphrased like you did me) in your last post.
I'm not misquoting you. In the post you talk about, you neither dispute or acknowledge the 200,000 deaths. You just compare them to Saddam's atrocities.
You have no understanding of who is fighting who in Iraq. You should read my 2 entries in my blog about Iraq, or maybe James Baker III's report about the mess in Iraq, or maybe David Corn's write-up in the last issue of the Nation. Education will go a long way to helping you understand what's going on, but ignorance is common so don't feel to bad about not understanding. You can fight it.
Your statement that we are at war is not only wrong, it's dangerous. People could get hurt if more than 10% of our country starts agreeing with you.
It's sad that you jump to conclusions.
1) Kerry said that Saddam was a threat. Threat to what? Sanity, peace in the middle east, a pleasant vacation in Baghdad? All of those things probably, but he never said that we should send troops into Iraq.
2) Congress voted to authorize the president to use force in Iraq as a last resort after he went back to the UN (like he said he would, but he lied). None of those votes were a vote to send troops into Iraq. They trusted the president. That won't happen again.
It's ridiculous that you are asking me whether I advocate taking oil from Iraqis. I don't even think we should be there. I said that part of Bush's excuse said that we could use Iraqi oil to pay for reconstruction so that we wouldn't have to pay and this has turned out to be false. I don't want their oil. I think we can find alternative energy sources if we can bypass the corrupt oil companies.
It's funny that you are part of the most powerful imperialistic country in history and you are scared of a couple of radical fundamentalist religious nuts with knives. It's sad really, but I guess you're one of the radical fundamentalist religious nuts on the other side. I wish we could put you all on an island somewhere and let you fight it out. You guys are sick.
You see, this is why Democrats advocate education. If we could have taught you something early on, then you couldn't be brainwashed by mindless fearmongering trash.
Maybe you'll do better in your next life. It would be hard to do worse. Peace out brother!
since you don't have the ability to even admit we are at war or who the enemy is or understand that "those couple of guys" are actually several thousand guys (at least) and they can and have used those harmless knives to fly airplanes into buildings and cut off American's heads for sport, then there is no point in trying to debate you about something you refuse to admit even exists.
I thank God for men and women brave enough to fight for your right to be so ignorant.
I've got you down for "defeat".
thanks for participating.
I'm bored with your partisan hacking,...Unless you have something to add to uniting the country or changing your support, i will be removing further off-topic comments.
debating with you over the 2000 says it all. You and most liberals have been in denial/hatred mode ever since. Talking to you nuts is about the 2000 election is like trying to tell a sports-nut that in spite of what the scoreboard says and what the papers ALL say and what the official record says, ...sure, their team really won the game.
You sir are what we like to call a "no-hoper".
I do hope you have a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year in spite of our "disagreements".
But hey,.. I tried.
-red
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
sorry folks, I had to remove aaron/avandeg's final comment due to offensive language/cursing.
THe issue is victory or defeat.
(he chose defeat by saying "no thanks" to the proposal of supporting victory).
I am not going to debate any more idiots about the 2000 election, WMD or anything else in this post.
we can do that in plenty of my other posts on those subjects.
-red
Okay, just to get my two cents worth in on this post.........
I did not support the war to begin with. I don't really believe we should have been over there in the first place.
However, we are over there and it is time to stop pining over the fact that we are. We're there, that's it. End of discussion.
That being said, I certainly support our troops and I certainly support our achieving victory over there.
God Bless you otter, welcome to the home team.
Again,I have the utmost respect for you in taking this stand (which could be controversial) since some could use this against you.
You and I might disagree on every other issue..(i'm not sure) but I view this issue as the most important of our time.
Now that we agree on that... who knows what it possible?
-red
Well Red...I've taken my stance. What do you think?
http://oklahomalefty.blogspot.com/2006/12/victory-red-stater-posed-couple-of.html
I do support the war. I do feel like we have done more good than harm. So, yes I am with you on this. I definitely support our troops and are very proud of them for what they do. Thanks again to any of our brave troops that read this. One question though, are there really those that 'Don't support our troops?' I'm sure there are some extremist groups, but the folks who want us to come home (or do not agree with the war) just happen to have a different opinion about the war. Is this really 'not supporting our troops'? I wouldn't see how that would be the right thing to say. It sounds like something that got exaggerated for political gain. I feel like this is very misquoted. Do you feel that the phrase is justified?
hey Anthony!
i respect you for having the guts to stand for victory no matter how you may feel about politics and thank you for your comments.
as far as "supporting the troops" goes, I am certain the troops consider YOUR support of their victory as support for them.
I am also certain that many of them think that anyone eagerly posting their daily death tolls, calling their mission immoral and illegal, calling them torturers and calling their commander in chief a liar is not supporting them.
Now, in my piece i didn't say liberals don't support the troops... I do think however that many liberals think that they can get away with claiming to support the troops by saying all of the above and worse... as long as they end it with "bring them home"... to cover themsleves.
Having said that...
OTTER, Oklahoma Lefty, and Anthony do NOT fit into that category.
May God Bless ya'...
-red
All the original goals in Iraq were achieved or made moot long ago. We're now fighting in Iraq's civil war and there's not much for America to win or lose. Even the US generals say that this conflict will have to be resolved politically -- not militarily.
I've written much more at my own blog (where you left a challenge comment) and at a group blog called Duck of Minerva.
That last link points to a lengthy recent post that is directly pertinent to your challenge.
okay rodger... just because you wrote about it, doesn't make what you wrote true.
to end your long bush hating rant you wrote...
"US troops are the foreign fighters responsible for killing the largest number of innocent Iraqis. Until everyone realizes this, then American foreign policy toward Iraq will fail".
so according to your opinion, we can't win unless we admit we are the bad guys and even then we would of course lose...
i'll mark you down for denial and defeat.
got it.
now, put your head back into the sand before the throatcutters (that you claim don't exist) get to it.
thanks for playing.
-red
How about you pro-war guys start holding enlistment rallies to encourage people to sign up?
I'm sure the recruiters would appreciate the help and the free publicity.
For all the rhetoric, nobody ever touches that. Not Bush, not Hannity, nobody. I'd think Hannity would be doing live broadcasts from recruiting stations, at the very least.
As far as I'm aware, that hasn't happened. It's like even the most hard-core pro-war people are at heart too ashamed of the fiasco to actually ask people to enlist.
I suppose that allows them to insulate themselves from feeling any responsibility for war casualties. Despite their rhetoric, they can tell themselves that the dead and wounded troops volunteered for their own reasons.
hello johnhendry...
welcome to redstaterville and reality.
So,if i take you at your word... you support those who join the military and wonder why I don't go out and recruit for them on your behalf?
Well I've got great news for you johnhendry, ...I'm not needed (in that regard)!
Read my post "why heroes volunteer" in the Dec. archives and it will more than answer all of your "questions" and perhaps cause you to "think" from another perspective on this.
Meanwhile, ("victory or defeat" is the post you commented on) since you seem to support volunteering for the military...
I can mark you down for VICTORY in Iraq, ...right?
-red
and rodger (professor payne) you keep wanting to debate things that are not relevant to the challenge/offer/question.
As the disclaimer clearly says...I am not asking who thinks victory is possible or immpossible, I'm not asking who won the Vietnam war or if it was possible to win it, i'm not asking if gore won the 2000 elelction or not and i'm not asking if you like Bush or not... heck i don't even care if you believe we are even in a war or not...
the question is IF we are in a war in Iraq do YOU (Rodger A Payne) support our U.S. VICTORY or our defeat?
So stop with the 60 question, bait and switch, false choice tactics...grow a pair and step up to the plate.
do you support the insurgents or the US military?
Defeat in iraq or Victory?
Haha, I love this blog! Lets see as for the question you pose Victory or Defeat...wow, tough choice. Hmmm, seeing as you are forcing polarization into two different sides rather than actually uniting people as you say, I'm going to pick "Victory."
Although, it seems kind of pointless to ask this. Do you seriously think that liberals want Defeat? I'm sure if Bush could wave a magic wand and make this whole mess into a simple victory then yes, of course we would want Victory.
I really think it is a little more complicated than Victory or Defeat though...eh whatever, you'll probably just delete my post anyways. Mark me down as "Victory"
Quick question,
George Bush, "bad president" or "the worst president"?
You can only choose one of these options....what's that, you don't want to answer either? I'll just mark you down for "the worst president".
Good luck on your quest to divide the country into two groups.
-Matt
Hi Matt, thank you for stopping by and expressing your opinion.
Lets take it one at a time and demonstrate the lack of logic in your take.
Try and focus and follow along, I think you can learn something.
First, I am not forcing you to take any side. We are at war with radical Islam whether you like it... or even admit it, or not.
Would a third option "TIE" have satisfied your need for more options? (I doubt it)
In a war such as this, a "tie" is not an option for either side whether you like it or believe it or not.
Victory or Defeat are the only two options available whether you like it or admit it or not.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GEORGE BUSH whether you like it or admit it or not.
Radical Islam is hellbent on destroying America... liberals, conservatives, whatever... whether you like it admit it or not.
YES, I think many liberals want America to be defeated In the middle east just as many liberals still relish in the so-called "defeat" of America in Vietnam... unfortunately they lie to themselves and try to create a NEW category for the outcome of a war besides "victory or defeat" to avoid facing the fact that they indeed do want defeat for their own country.
Sad, but true whether you like it or admit it or not.
The lack of logic is demonstrated by your example question which doesn't offer opposing answers but merely the same answer worded to fit your need. (worst or bad is virtually the same thing) Victory and Defeat are opposite.... see the difference Matt?
I would have to say Algore is the worst President ever... according to most liberals he IS actually the President (right?), yet he let Bush act like the President and go to war while he (algore) is running around the country selling Carbon Offsets and snake oil.
That has got to be the worst President ever... But he has hope if Hillary gets elected, she has the potential to be much worse than algore ever thought of being.
Thanks for playing...
-red
Post a Comment
<< Home