Same recycled claptrap that the Bush II administration spouted about how the Iraq war would be paid for. Go away Sadler.
TRUMP on Fox 2015.09.21 (Greta On the Record)
- Thread starter David Sadler
- Start date
Same recycled claptrap that the Bush II administration spouted about how the Iraq war would be paid for. Go away Sadler.
David Sadler
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 635
Source?
i heard him say that...Meet the Press i think.
timosman
Banned
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 29,090
It's what he said in the GOP debate. Did you not watch it?
The anonymous VegasPatriot got a neg rep because he fired the first shot. VP fights like a liberal or globalist by complaining when fire is returned, and then misrepresents the reason for the neg rep. Pitiful.
You're posting on this forum for the sole purpose of trolling it, supporting a big government warmongering statist like Trump for President. You aren't part of the liberty movement. Why would you expect to not get neg repped and to not get push back for what you're doing here? All you do on this forum is promote Trump's candidacy. You don't promote the cause of liberty, and you add absolutely nothing to this forum. I really don't even see why you're even allowed to post here. AUH2O was banned for doing the same thing.
Have you been to Iraq? The oil fields controlled by ISIS are deep in Iraq. Any troops isolated that deep in enemy territory trying to hold refineries are sitting ducks. Now either Trump would get quite a number of US troops slaughtered like the battle of Mogadishu, AKA Blackhawk down, or he would listen to his MacArthur who would recommend a whole multidivisional occupation of Iraq in order to support that mission. Even when we had 135,000 troops in Iraq we couldn't stop the refineries from getting hit. I don't know how many time I flew over the Tigris river flowing with crude oil because the pipelines had been blown up. So Trump in his stupid fucking ignorance was criticizing Bush for why we didn't pay for the occupation with oil and I know why the fuck we weren't getting oil. I fucking hate chickenhawks like Trump who are indifferent to US military lives and dodged the draft when it was their opportunity to hide in a foxhole in Vietnam.
Last edited:
VegasPatriot
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 772
The anonymous VegasPatriot got a neg rep because he fired the first shot. VP fights like a liberal or globalist by complaining when fire is returned, and then misrepresents the reason for the neg rep. Pitiful.
Your trumpsucking is what is pitiful. I will continue to neg rep the trump pumpers, you being one of the biggest.
acptulsa
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 75,396
How dumb does someone have to be to think it's possible to 'take the oil fields and make them ours' without invading and occupying?
Patrick Henry
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
Yikes. That there is some convoluted neoconology.
RonPaulMall
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
Hopefully Trump's comments will induce Rand to speak up on this as well just like with birthright citizenship. It would be better if Rand would come out first on these things, but long term being a Johnny Come Lately is better than being a Johnny Come Never at All.
RonPaulMall
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
Trump opposed the Iraq war. All he's saying here is that if you are going to start a war, you should get something out of it.
He only opposed the war because Bush wasn't getting the OIL. ALL of the trumps quotes show that he thinks we were OWED the oil. There is absolutely Nothing showing he thought it was bad because it might not be good for the Iraqis. The motherfucker wants to go back in and GET the OIL NOW.
RonPaulMall
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,245
Trump doesn't frame non-interventionism in terms of what is good or bad for Iraqis. He frames it in terms of what is good or bad for Americans. This is a lesson all Liberty Candidates need to learn. And he wasn't saying we should have invaded Iraq for oil. He said invading Iraq was a disaster, but having done it, we might as well take the oil in order to get something out of it.
David Sadler
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 635
Your language is crude. Your thoughts are unsophisticated. You have no idea what liberty is or what it entails. You only know what you want and what you feel.
David Sadler
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2007
- Messages
- 635
Actually, I question your commitment to liberty and to taking the actions necessary to defend those liberties which still exist and to regain that portion which is lost. You don't seem to understand the fractured state of the American culture and body politic. What is apparent is your adoption of the characteristics of the modern day Internet forum junkie whose identity is formed by joining forum gangs and whose power comes by dominating venues of free and open expression by attempting to shut down views that oppose your own. These are the only battles you have any chance of winning since on the political front, every card is stacked against those who love liberty.
Trump isn't the perfect candidate as I and others have said all along. But Trump represents something that no other candidate in this election cycle can claim to represent at this point in the campaign. Trump represents the dissatisfaction with the system and the status quo. As the polls have shown since July, those who are disenfranchised and who are fed up with the system and the status quo in the 'conservative' GOP grass roots believe that Trump is the one person who has the financial capability to fight the establishment on its home court and win.
Many of those opposed to Trump on the RPF favor open borders and 'free' trade. These are two policies that have been central to contributing to the destruction of the American culture, standard of living and the national security. In my view and the view of a few others, those who support open borders and 'free' trade are anti-individual liberty and national sovereignty.
Rand would be a very acceptable candidate according to his views, but the strategy he employed beginning at the end of Ron's campaign has been misguided and confusing to those of us who supported Ron. And his bad decisions and confusing statements especially of foreign policy have cost him much needed early support. Now, with his numbers continuing to hover at or below 5% as we head into October, and with the GOP establishment against him, the future for his campaign looks bleak indeed because he doesn't have the resources that Trump has to wage a self-funded campaign.
So if we want someone to shake up the system to try to gain an advantage for personal liberty, who do we pick in this field of liars and traitors? You will make your calculations and pick your poison. I will make mine. While I really don't care who you pick or what you think, you are very concerned about who I pick and what I think. You and your fellow forum gang members remind me of the politicians and bureaucrats who think it is their job to tell everyone else how to live. And like FOX and CNN, you are ready to spin and censor anyone who disagrees with you.
Your incitement to have me banned is an assault upon my personal freedom and liberty. It is also an assault upon the open and free market place of ideas. By inciting to ban, you do not defend liberty, but you do impose tyranny on a very small scale.
Similar threads
