War And Peace Troll Style

Well, I can see that a simple question posed in a provocative manner with several openings for debate will once again bring out every nut-job on the forum.

I can't tell you how pleased I am that you took the time to expose how pathetically ridiculous most of you are. I have to say most because I was impressed with a couple of you. The rest of you provided me with plenty of smiles and laughter ... thanks.

I will go in order to make it easy for you elitest f*cktards to keep up.

skeeenah - You represent all that I find hilarious with idiot liberals. Your posts were without thought, meaning, or any coherency whatsoever. Then, you show everyone how pleased you are with your comments and how superior you believe yourself to be when clearly you were abused as a child. Go home, eat some Wheaties, read a damn book and come back when you have something to contribute. You are a joke.

roach - King of the meaningless one-liners. You seem to hope that by making clever little quips you will make me submit and bow to your supremacy. One-liners are not much for debate. The only thing you submitted that seemed worthy of a response was that Republicans were on the Syria trip as well. That is true, and they are not worthy of re-election. Not all Republicans are conservatives ... that may be a complex thought for you, so take your time and think before providing us with more senseless one-liners. Thank you.

Count - You were probably the most worthless poster of all. I have rarely seen someone talk so much shit without backing a single bit of it up. Your amazing contribution consisted of calling me names and saying you hoped I would post ... what a dumb ass. But, I am posting so I guess you will be happy. I wouldn't recommend putting down your crayons and rounded scissors to read this though, because I doubt you would understand it.

Dr. Freedom - You did a little better ... a little. You gave a typical liberal response. You answered a question with a question that is skewed so as to make skewed implications regarding the original question. Here is your answer ...
No, there should be NO state sponsored religion. Now, was that what my question pertained to? Of course not. All I was leading to is that Christianity is constantly under attack in this country and it is supposed to be taken in stride. I would expect that the religion of our forefathers who founded this country would get the SAME protections as any other religion. But I suppose as long as there are people like you out there, it will be an uphill battle against ignorance.

Jonathan - Thank you. You were the first to apply yourself to the thread. I disagree with you and will explain, but I appreciate your effort.
The democrats on the far left especially do seem to have disdain for Christianity. They profess to be Christians while acting in opposition. I will sound like a typical conservative here, forgive me, it is hypocritical to profess to love Christ, then pursue state recognized gay rights, partial birth abortions, and the removal of any mention of Christ from daily society in the name of "seperation of church and state" which essentially indicates that there shall NOT be a state sponsored religion. SOCAS does not mean that Christ should be avoided at all costs. And yes, the far right wing is almost as far out there as the far left, but at least they have an unchanging belief structure that is rooted in Chrtistianity, no matter how whacko they may seem at times. (and yes, many of you made good points about how Christianity is still a key part of our lives in this society, but it is the undefended attacks on it that would not be tolerated on other religions that irks me)
As to Iraq, the liberals narrow-minded views on why we should or should not have gone in to Iraq are dangerous. Militant Islam has taken a hard line view of the teachings of the Koran. They want Israel out of their holy land and despise us for supporting them. That is not the only reason they hate us, but it is a core reason. This hard line segment has grown like wildfire throughout the middle east and is a threat to the US and our allies.
They expect either the submission and conversion of infidels, or our death. Plain and simple. This threat was finally taken seriously by a U.S. administration and we have actively pursued them where ever they are. They were in Iraq, a country that was under restrictions by the U.N. prior to our engagement, a country that routinely violated numerous warnings by the U.N. and a country that had previously used WMD and claimed to have more of them. Our involvement in Iraq was justified and necessary, it was just not handled as definitively as it should have been.

Kim, Pb.D - I have nothing to say about your posts except ... well done. While I have a few minor disagreements with your posts, they come down to fundamental differences between our respective viewpoints. Thank you for offering your views, I enjoyed them and respected them.

Sergei Andropov - Wow, another poster that has earned my respect. I disagree with your generalizations regarding God and Allah. I know to what you are referring, but I have my personal beliefs in place that tend to hold me to the belief in one true God rather than the scholarly view of religion.
Regarding our involvement in Iraq, see my previous writings. And I disagree with your statement that brute force is suicide. I firmly believe (and so do many experts) that brute force is all they respect. I believe we have taken a passive approach for decades and look where we are today.
Your views on the democratic candidates are understandable though I disagree. That is what makes America great though. I respect your opinion though I disagree with it.
I will end it there regarding your posts. I thought you did a fine job. Oops, one more thing, in regards to privatized medical in Somalia and here, we should also mention socialized medical in Cuba, Canada, and the UK.

ET PbD - I liked your enthusiasm. I hope you will forgive me, but I will have to save my debate with you for another post. I believe you would be a spirited debate, but honestly I do not have the energy to start on your post right now. You put a lot into yours and I would not want to short change you.

John L - You are easy. You focused on a small part of my post where I was not clear enough rather than really offer anything of value. Hey ... at least you got your name on the board. Good for you. As to my lack of reply last night, I was asleep. It was late and I do work. Sorry if my time zone is inconvenient for you, but then again you really ofered nothing anyway.
Since it was my fault for not being clear, let me be clear. When I say I don't care why they hate us, I simply mean I don't care that they do. I misspoke and apologize. I know 'why' they hate us but it is no excuse for the bullshit they have launched against us. Further, when I say we should should look at what is happening in the region, I mean we must find the root of the financing and training and snuff it out. I am sure that will be picked apart and analyzed word by word by people as 'deep and complexed' as yourself rather than taken for the meaning that I am conveying. Have at it.

il128 - I actually had a long and insulting reply for you, but took a moment and realized that you showed no hostility in your post. That I can respect. What I would ask is that you go to the following website, and I mean this sincerely, and start your long road to recovery.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com

Paul - I will take a moment for you. I will skip your rant on religion. I didn't find it particularly noteworthy. Force in Iraq ... you said you were in favor of it but not as a first option? Were you here in the many months leading up to our attack on Iraq? It was hardly a first option. Political routes were taken first.
Re: Nancy, of course I have a bias ... don't you? As for the Republicans, see my previous writings.
Socialized health care takes health care out of the realm of competition. Privatizing encourages competition which lowers costs and encourages medical advancements. Go to the UK and see how long it can take to be seen compared to the US.
Socialism encourages abuse and lays the cost on taxpayers. Yes, there are those who need help, I am in favor of that, but abuse is rampant by those unwilling to pull their weight.
As for the teachers, I would offer this ... it is not their place to discuss it at all. They are there to teach not provide political or moral views on matters of homosexuality. That remains the responsibility of the parents.

freedomlover - Good job reposting what others said. Originality just isn't your thing is it?

early2it - Hey Rosie, I saw you on "The View" and you look like hell!

MiketheLiberal - I don't think I could disagree with you more, but that is why you are a liberal and I am a conservative. I doubt we would see eye to eye on many social and political views. I appreciated your attitude though. On another post I would be very willing to answer your questions, and I mean that sincerely, but for the sake of this never-ending post I will just leave it as this, I believe the exact opposite. :)
I do apologize for short changing you, just like ET PbD, I would love to go into philosophical differences with both of you because I believe we could have a spirited yet informative discussion. A post where I can take the time to articulate worthy responses would be required, and this is not the post I am afraid. I will take a definite rain check for now.

bronxboy - What a shining example you are. You are almost too easy. I will just chalk you up to being some poor little shit who was touched inappropriately as a child and hasn't quite got over it. You are a pathetic asshole and believe it or not I pity you and your colossal ignorance.

I hope that was adequate for tonight. I also hope most of you will try a little harder next time.

RSC -

Posted by: RedStateConservative () on Thu 4.5 6:46am