Black and Right

Just watch this.

1. I thought that was very good, of course I happen to agree with the man.  I really liked the end when he quoted some Dems from before the year 2000.  I doubt however many people can keep their attention to this for longer than 2 sentences.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2007 at 2217 hrs




2. “Black and right” isn’t self-centered and smug?

   About two minutes is all you need.

   Who is playing politics with lives? Not an administration that had to distract voters from the corporate scandals or its inability to find Ossama going into the 2002 elections with the run-up to this screwup, or an administration who uses soldiers as a tableau when the waters of trouble rise.

   Excuse me but liberals did not send off these people to their deaths, debilitating injuries, mental and marriage breakdown. Cheney and Bush did for essentially an oil deal. Parks, you can shove your righteous (you’re not self-centered are you) right up your depository.

   Always love when the right brandishes some African-American as a novelty act to make some outlandish point. That’s just plain shallow and clueless.

   And as much as Parks is entitled to his point, a vast majority of Americans—black and white—do not.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 0653 hrs




3. Damn, KR. Talk about self righteous. Look in the mirror. Democrats also voted to give Bush authorization for the war. Democrats were saying the same things Bush was before the war. I’m no repub, but in the last 5 years I’ve come to despise the Democrat party. I’m sure you feel the same about conservatives.

   Posted by Billiam on March 21, 2007 at 0706 hrs




4. It is a shame that people, left, right and center, cannot listen to a point of view and respond to the points presented, rather than attack the presenter. kr, when you decide to comment at least have accurate facts. Libs most certainly did “send off these people to their deaths”. when congress authorized the war. What does the color of this man’s skin have to do with the statement he made? Why is it a “novelty act” for this man to voice his opinion? It certainly speaks volumes about your character, kr, that you chose to attack the man instead of the argument. Your statement that “Parks, you can shove your righteous right up your depository” certainly clarified the matter for all of us. When confronted with a well presented, well thought out opinion, you choose to villianize the presenter rather than respond with an intelligent rebuttal.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 0725 hrs




5. 10 things about Iraq

   1. Iraq was not a threat to us when we invaded
   2. Our invasion made the threat of Islamic terrorism worse
   3. The longer we stay there, the worse the threat becomes
   4. We are not at war in Iraq, we are an occupying army.
   5. An occupation can only end in two ways-Annexation or withdrawl
   6. The conditions that we are waiting for before accepting withdrawl (security and stability) will not occur because of our presence
   7. Using our military as a security force when their very presence is undermining the security they are trying to bring about, while simultaneously denying them adequate support when they return home is not “supporting the troops”
   8, The people who planned and implemented this war have been wrong every step of the way with every prediction and projection, so logic would dictate that they should no longer have any credibility in the matters of war, especially since most of them have no experience in the military.
   9. The military and financial resources that we used to invade and occupy Iraq could have been more effective at ensuring our security had they been used elsewhere
   10. All of the atrocities that war supporters have been claiming will occur if we leave have been happening despite our presence

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1101 hrs




6. 1)Islamofascism wasn’t a threat to us until the WTC fell.
   2)Our invasion HAS NOT made the Islamic threat worse
   3) The longer we stay the LESS the threat becomes.
   4)We are killing Al Qaeda by the scores in Iraq, thereby stopping Al Qaeda from becoming an occupying army.
   5)We will leave when our work is done.
   6)We will leave Iraq with a democracy and self-security
   7)Our forces are not undermining Iraqi security and the Iraqi government wants us to finish the job not leave now.
   8)Those who planned this are no different than those who planned every war in history.
   9) War is expensive and difficult. 
   10)You couldn’t give a rats ass about the atrocities being committed.  We are putting down the terrorists.

   Posted by mickey on March 21, 2007 at 1445 hrs




7. What color is the sky in your universe?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1452 hrs




8. 3) The longer we stay the LESS the threat becomes.

   And you would use the Korean Peninsula and the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as examples of the veracity of this approach, mickey?

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1455 hrs




9. kr -

   There is nothing “self-centered and smug” about exercising your inalienable right to free speech.  Just because you may not agree with it doesn’t mean he’s some kind of ego-maniac. 

   Sheesh…another shining example of liberalism at it’s “best”.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1519 hrs




10. i especially like Mickey’s 8)Those who planned this are no different than those who planned every war in history.

    Who knew that there was a race of immortals controlling mankind’s destiny from behind the scenes? You’d think they’d get better at it with practice.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1526 hrs




11. Dan-Maybe you should explain that to your buddy in the video. He is the one that was calling the majority of Americans “self-centered, self-righteous, better than anyone” because they dared to express their disagreement with the war.

    Just because you don’t agree with them doesn’t mean that they are some kind of America hating traitors.

    Sheesh…another shining example of conservatism at it’s “best”.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1535 hrs




12. Watching that video is a lesson in how irrational the debate has become.  I’ve never met these incredibly devious, manipulative, shameless, power hungry leftists/democrats that this dude describes.  I have met scores of people like me who have an honest disagreement about the rational behind entering this war in the first place, and since we’ve entered and stayed, the wisdom of allowing the electeds who have mismanaged it from the beginning to continue to lead the way.  As an American I simply continue to excercise my right of free speech on the topic, without any need to demonize, question the patriotism of, or accuse in any way those who disagree with me.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1609 hrs




13. Lefty,

    Of course, you must recognize that if this guy accepted that liberals aren’t power-hungry, manipulative America-hating traitorous cowards, he would have to actually,

    You know,

    debate us on the merits of our arguments instead of just demonizing us.

    And that’s something that he and people like mickey are just not prepared to do, so they just metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and cheer louder, convinced that our dear leader will triumph in the end if we just wish hard enough and clap loud enough.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1646 hrs




14. If you’d only watch the video Dan right off the bat Parks makes those kinds of insinuations about liberals. As far as him being black, I could give a crap but apparently Parks makes a big deal about it with the title of his presentation.

    As others put it in the thread, Parks is the one who is demonizing us, which is rich when you consider how immoral this occupation is. Parks just feels fit claim moral high crowd when he is really operating in the trench.

    What a fool.

    And Mickey, you as usual know jack about what you are talking about. World-wide, terrorist acts have been on the rise since we invaded Iraq because this seems to be the only place where our military can operate.

    And as far as Bush is concerned, he has no plans to leave ever.

    Now scream your ass off.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2007 at 1716 hrs




15. When we all realize that man is inherently greedy and when we look back at history, we will realized that we are no different than previous generations of the human race. We are just into a new cycle of competition, self-righteousness, nationalism and host of other wonderful human characteristics that have made this world what it is today and what it will continue to be in the future.

    It would be nice if we could just leave one another alone to pursue our own form of happiness and fulfillment but I don’t see that happening anytime soon. So…..until that time, if it ever comes, the right to live as you choose will only be realized if you are willing to do whatever it takes to get the other guy to leave you alone. Someone called it peace through strength. I call it being the baddest dude on the block. At the present time, we have no one in a leadership role with the understanding that you must back up your rhetoric with action. We did this in the Gulf War of the early 90’s. We kicked butt, took names and brought the boys home. Now we are in a mess because our leadership won’t let our soldiers do the job the way the generals know it should be done. Where is Patton when we need him?

    Action to procure a nation’s right to peace and security does not always have to involve violence. To say that our national security and interests as a nation depend on oil is certainly true. At this point in time, not having a ready supply of oil would be catastrophic. We have something equally as important which is food. A barrel of oil for a bushel of wheat is not irrational. Additionally, the last time I looked, we are still buying our oil not taking it. We do have the power to just take it but have we? No, because we do have morals. We, however, have a national guilt complex and every time a solution for us will make someone else uncomfortable, some bleeding heart calls it inhumane. To that end I say, nukes can be pretty inhumane as well and we are headed in that direction. The choice is ours but we will have to garner a new national will to change this direction. We need a leader who will not submit to pressure and will truly act in the interest of the majority of the population. I sure don’t see that person in the current pool of candidates for the presidency. 

    We have worked hard for what we have in this country. Many others would love to also have our prosperity. As we are still much the same as those of previous generations, we had better realize that once you acquire something that is valuable, you’d better be willing to fight in order to keep it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 30, 2007 at 1344 hrs