As I understand it Kennedy’s stupid gaffe was a slip of the tongue. Don’t know about Rather. But when I see it written here by your standardless side it is clearly deliberate. So, it is YOU with no standards. Same goes with “Hildebeast” which seems tobe another favorite with your ide.

Like I said – after my experiences with your godarchy friends in 1994 and seeing the 2004 presidential campaign such attacks will be responded to. And, with that smear book out against Obama you should expect recirpocity.

Tell us again Paul – how are all those bases in Iraq helping us drive Russia out of Georgia and the breakaway regions. My prediction stands – Russia will stay in the regions and probably also a ‘buffer’ in Georgia – AFTER they finish destroying the Georgia military infrastructure. And the US will do nothing. I would not be surprised to see regime change.

McCain can sing ‘bomb Russia’ all he wants in his attempts at “Bullying and intimidation” but to no avail. Just like his singing ‘bomb Iran’ has done nothng.

IIRC, the Kansas House only needed one more vote to override the Governor’s veto on the Holcomb plant expansion.

If Bonnie Huy had been there, the override would have passed.

Unfortunately for your side, Raj Goyle was there instead to stop the proposed biggest single producer of CO2 in the United States.

Which RepubliCON are you going to help lose to Raj Goyle this time?

All those other countries are countries.

We’re the chosen people of God, the city on the hill.

We don’t have to obey the rules we force on other people.

:roll:

I guess you have NO standards, huh Ben?

If you hear something offensive or flat our wrong, you could come up with a substantive complaint against the candidate you do not support, and you could put the other party on the spot for not telling the truth. That is, if you can prove that point.

Instead, Ben, you tend to resort to cheap insults and attacks as much as the rest of the libs.

Yea, and I have a bridge for sale …

It is you that once attacked any Republican who criticized John McCain.

You are now one of McCain’s harshest critics.

Hey, I was not poking fun at you for not winning.

Most successful people, in politics, have lost at least one race. That is often how we learn.

However, the fact that ONE of the people that I supported, nearly 2 years ago, did NOT win seems to come up every week, on this Blog.

Amazing!

You libs sure are petty.”

Yes, Paul, I ran an honorable campaign against Les Donovan in 1994. As I recall I ‘beat the spread’ – that is I outpolled other Democrats in my heavily Republican district. Les and I ran a straight-up and open campaign – both of us. I remember joking with Les at the Church where we both voted that he and I were both ‘politicking’ at the pools – since he and I were talking to each other. And yes, as expected Les won handily.

However, there were those on YOUR side who didn’t want a clean campaign. Godarchy started a stealth campaign against me claiming that I was running on the “gay rights agende bacause I was closet gay”. That came as quite a shock to my teen-aged son and my wife – and to Les and HIS wife who happen to be in our Parish. The fact that self-described “Christians” would stoop to such lies is indicative of just how ‘petty’ YOU and YOURS are. Of course, such tactics are part and parcel of your style; isn’t it Paul?

Which is what soulmate Putin is doing to his enemy.

bth
Posted August 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
bth
Posted August 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
“… we do have some bases now, in Iraq, from which we can help in Georgia.”

Hey Paul – how’s that working out so far?

Still waiting …

“Suck it up and talk about something else. I am done with this one.”

Yea Paul, because you lost. Just as Bush’s soulmate won.

However, the United States HAD such permission, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Such permission continued, as recognized by the cease fire agreement that Iraq signed with the United States.

Iraq, an non-sovereign nation, due to Iraq’s violation . . . more yadda, yadda . . . ad infinitum . . .
=======================================================
Still nope.

“Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
—–
The United States was not required to ask for “permission” in the case of Iraq.

However, the United States HAD such permission, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Such permission continued, as recognized by the cease fire agreement that Iraq signed with the United States.

Iraq, an non-sovereign nation, due to Iraq’s violation of international law, was then punished for violating a cease fire agreement negotiated after an Act of Congress and the United Nations authorized the use of force, in the first place, and after the United States Congress, REAUTHORIZED force, once again, after Iraq violated terms of the cease fire.

YOU LOST!

Suck it up and talk about something else. I am done with this one. I don’t like kicking people when they are down, not even you.

JM
You might not be bright enough to understand my answer, but the answer stands:

Under the definition of the word “sovereign” itself, Iraq did NOT have full power over its borders or its affairs.

It is very simple liberals. You have two, and only. . . yadda, yadda, yadda. . . .
====================================================
Nope, still no answer.

Under the definition of the word “sovereign” itself, Iraq did NOT have full power over its borders or its affairs.

It is very simple liberals. You have two, and only two choices:

1.) Support “total war” scorched Earth tactics, to the total destruction of your enemy, in every combat.

Or

2.) Allow something short of “total war” — such as cease fire agreements, truces, and the like, where a defeated country gives up some sovereignty, in exchange for avoiding total annihilation.

You “peace lovers” and anti war nuts need to understand something:

IF you allow peace treaties, cease fires, truces and other peace making tools to be disrespected or gutted, then you are, actually, supporting TOTAL WAR!

Why would any country allow anything less than “unconditional surrender” — if you liberals make it clear that agreements that fall short of complete victory will not be honored?

Your ideology makes war more deadly.

Nobody trusts liberals to enforce the rules, so the enemy must be completely destroyed.

writerdog
Your interpretation is flat wrong.
MEMBERSHIP in the United Nations is done through a treaty.
Said treaty clearly states that member states can act alone, if necessary, in self defense or in defense of UN Sanctions.
======================================================
You still ain’t answered XXX’s question.

Does anyone on the left, or the right, think that I was wrong with that advice?