Slam Obama (merged)

Rockin Robbins · 10-10-08, 07:01 PM

Sheesh folks, let's agree to a couple of things. Let me toss 'em out one by one:

Bush is no conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Bush is no leader. Ronald Reagan was a leader, who commanded the respect of those who did not agree with him. What Bush does does not reflect on conservatives at all, or conservatism.

President Clinton was the best Republican he could be for six years. His whole presidency after 1994 was based on finding out what the Republicans wanted and doing it first. Although liberal by inclination, Clinton was an opportunist, who chose his actions by ease of accomplishment and estimated amount of popular acclaim that would result. Were Clinton president on September 11, 2001, he would have done exactly what President Bush did, including the war in Iraq, and for the same reasons.

Actually, both Bushes and Clinton were identical types of president. They would say they had a position, walk into a meeting and say, "but who cares what I think, let's make a deal." The only area where HW Bush showed any leadership was the war against terrorism and Iraq, and he was unable to explain satisfactorily why he did the right thing. That yields the same result as doing the wrong thing.

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

10-10-08, 07:01 PM	#9
Rockin Robbins Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: DeLand, FL Posts: 8,900 Downloads: 135 Uploads: 52	Sheesh folks, let's agree to a couple of things. Let me toss 'em out one by one: Bush is no conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Bush is no leader. Ronald Reagan was a leader, who commanded the respect of those who did not agree with him. What Bush does does not reflect on conservatives at all, or conservatism. President Clinton was the best Republican he could be for six years. His whole presidency after 1994 was based on finding out what the Republicans wanted and doing it first. Although liberal by inclination, Clinton was an opportunist, who chose his actions by ease of accomplishment and estimated amount of popular acclaim that would result. Were Clinton president on September 11, 2001, he would have done exactly what President Bush did, including the war in Iraq, and for the same reasons. Actually, both Bushes and Clinton were identical types of president. They would say they had a position, walk into a meeting and say, "but who cares what I think, let's make a deal." The only area where HW Bush showed any leadership was the war against terrorism and Iraq, and he was unable to explain satisfactorily why he did the right thing. That yields the same result as doing the wrong thing. I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city. At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war. You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any. __________________ Sub Skipper's Bag of Tricks, Slightly Subnuclear Mk 14 & Cutie, Slightly Subnuclear Deck Gun, EZPlot 2.0, TMOPlot, TMOKeys, SH4CMS Last edited by Rockin Robbins; 10-10-08 at 07:13 PM.