Top 10 Reasons to Hate Democrats

^^ well said.......


it was Reagan who gave money to the facist, brutal Niquaragan(spell??) government who was overthrown in the revolution....these government leaders where worst than Sudam ever was.. and the CIA gave them drug money taken from the middle east, for weapons.. which turned into a blood bath... my father witnessed it first hand.... the Niqua Gov' rolled back in and killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, women and children.. not even associated with the San Da Nesta..... And guess who was behind all the funding for it.. Goerge Bush senior and Reagan...( not saying they said go kill over half your country off, but they were either too blinded or were getting a cutback and didnt care) i mean one minuete their funding these "enemies/terrorist" the next min there going to war against them... i think we have alot of little rich kids who have been spoiled and blinded by actual life, runing this government...not just now, tho more than ever now, but since Rosevelt gave up his seat...

and that goes for Republicans and Demorcrats.... I mean the dems are just as bad, tho the lesser of both evils..Are they trying to veto any of there bills? no they think if they let him have his way this time it'll be easier next time...but it wont... so they just sit back and whine.. actually its the democrats supporters who do the whining that are trying to change things..i think the dems are right there with the Reps in their little dunguen conjuring up more deveish plans...

when dealing with a larger threats to the world like the soviet union WAS,(thanks ronnie,it makes total sense to back a semi-bad guy to kill the very bad guy.wise up.

when dealing with a larger threats to the world like the soviet union WAS,(thanks ronnie,it makes total sense to back a semi-bad guy to kill the very bad guy.wise up.
__________________
That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I should really be writing these down....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BlueCat

when dealing with a larger threats to the world like the soviet union WAS,(thanks ronnie,it makes total sense to back a semi-bad guy to kill the very bad guy.wise up.
__________________
That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. I should really be writing these down....

---

im sure in your lala land these types of things are way over your head,its pretty obvious why you were an art teacher.

support for bad regimes to defeat larger threats is common foreign policy.foreign policy is not a philosophy seminar.In philosophy seminars,the choice is usually between good and evil.IN THE REAL WORLD,however,the choice is often between a bad guy and a worse guy.The central principle of foreign policy is the doctrine of the lesser evil.This means that a country is always justified in supporting a bad regime to overthrow a regime that is even worse.In World War 11,for instance,the United States allied with Stalin,to oppose a manwho was an even greater threat at the time,Hitler.

By the same logic,U.S. support for despots such as Pinochet,Marcos,and the Shah of Iran was entirely defensible in the context of the cold war.The United States was fighting a larger battle against the "evil empire".Given that the Soviet empire posed the greatest threat to freedom and human rights in the world,the United States was RIGHT to attach less significance to the status of Pinochet,Marcos,and the shah as tin-pot dictatorsthan to their anti-soviet beliefs.

Are liberals incapable of the kind of practical moral reasoning that foreign policy requires.It seems they are. :rolleyes:

Ok maybe with all your foreign policy wisdom...you can explain

how the US governemnt removed "ELECTED DEMOCRATIC" governements and installed their own
Here's a few highlights of recent US Foreign Policy issues

CIA's overthrow of democratic governments in Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Guyana, Iran, Indonesia and Congo.

CIA's overthrow of Iraq's government in 60's and installation of Saddam.

US terrorism in Nicaragua leading to condemnation by the World Court.

CIA training and support of death squads and repressive secret police in Iran, Indonesia, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala and Vietnam.

US-backed security forces committed the vast majority of human rights abuses during the war in guatemala, including torture, kidnapping and the murder of thousands of rural Mayans, contradicting years of official denial. The commission estimates over 200,000 Guatemalans were killed in the civil war, the most brutal armed conflict in Latin America history.

The CIA responds, under Reagan, by creating a paramilitary force to 'stop the flow of military supplies from Nicaragua to El Salvador' (despite little evidence of this actually occuring). The force grows to around 50,000 in the late 80s, and throughout the 80s mounts raids on Nicaragua, attacking schools and medical clinics, raping, kidnapping, torturing, massacres, mining harbours etc etc.


You are simply backing the evil side and making excuses for it.

They removed the good democratic governments ....not the bad for less bad. so explain it oh wise Hamster....



http://www.lossless-audio.com/usa/index0.php

i know we have backed evil sides,i just explained why.dosent bother me at all.

During the 1970's jimmy carter decided that the longtime ally of the United States,the shah of Iran was a despot. applying typical liberal logic,carter decided that he could not in good conscience continue to support the shah.Indeed,he actively aided in the shahs ouster.The result,of course,was the reign of the Ayatollah Khomeini.if the shah was bad,khomeini was worse.way to go jimmy.4 years and your gone.

Maybe you were sleeping.....or out commiting armed robbery...and missed "The Iran-Contra scandal" it can be traced to the October Surprise during the 1980 Presidential election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. In the fall of 1980, Carter was marginally leading Reagan in the polls with the election right around the corner. The release of hostages before election day presumably would have insured the election for Carter. The Reagan team conspired to negotiate a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. Campaign manager William Casey and George Bush met with Iranian Prime Minister Bani-sadr in Paris in October, only weeks before the election and with Carter having a slight lead over Reagan. Part of the deal cut between the Reagan team and Iran was to provide military weapons which Iran desperately needed in its war with Iraq. As it turned out, the 52 American hostages remained captive in Teheran. Carter's popularity continued to plummet, enabling Reagan to be elected in November, and ironically the hostages were returned at 12 o'clock noon on January 21, 1981 when Reagan was inaugurated.

Get your facts straight. You are a crook supporting crooks.

speaking of armed robbery,my wife and i are headed out to the range later.almost forgot,thanx.we just bought her a little derringer .22 to carry.

ollie north is an american patriot.that was an interesting story though,ive read some on it but i was 1 when that was happening.

Oliver North a patriot? Ok, first it was Reagan the "economic savior," now this. You're seriously drinking the Kool Aid.

i was being sarcastic.