Comments on: The Liberal Lollipop Guild

By: Demian Farnworth

Demian Farnworth — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:16:35 +0000

Thanks for stating what should be obvious. It would be nice if they didn’t hit back, but, well, if they didn’t, then I guess it wouldn’t be a war. It’d be us hitting them…and them hitting the floor. [I know, bad joke.]

By: Con1

Con1 — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:38:17 +0000

Hehehe… nothing brings them out faster than someone pointing out errors in logic or truth…

By: Terence Smelser

Terence Smelser — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 06:34:25 +0000

JESUS Con, how DO you attract so many liberal pansy asses?
Honestly girls, it soooo simple.

HAMAS = TERRORISTS

WE are at WAR with TERRORISTS. (See September 11 2001) My only complaint is that we are not killing them fast enough

Abraham Lincoln said:
A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have.
In other words, we SUPPORT Israel. Questions?

The Blood Price, is not one YOU paid. It was a gift to free, right thinking people everywhere, by young men and women of character and valor, who understood the price when they took the oath.

There is a cause that is custom made for liberal sissys: http://www.peta.org/Sea_Kittens/index.asp

And now:
Shut up.

By: Lambart Wojum

Lambart Wojum — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:30:21 +0000

Why does questioning the success of the War on Terror automatically make you a liberal surrender monkey? Does being conservative automatically grant you magical infallibility? The last 8 years would suggest not. Mistakes have been made, and only a “sheep” would make excuses and accusations.

By: Con1

Con1 — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 20:06:12 +0000

You are making my point sooooo well..

Going right over your head is the fact that I am calling the efforts of radical Islam a modern day Crusade- not our efforts.

In order to debate issues well, you have to accurately recognize contextual implications.

You are correct. War is over when it is over. But an increase in the opponent’s hostilities is not only not a sign of failure, it is also to be expected, by anyone with an understanding of such things.

By: j.e.h.

j.e.h. — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:40:53 +0000

Call me a loony leftist if you like, but either the “war” is ongoing (which may account for the increased hostilities seen in 2007) in which case it cannot be considered a success. Or, if it was a successful conflict, then we should have achieved a positive resolution with a period of reducing hostilites (which we haven’t.)

Nobody called WWII a success after D-Day (even though it ended successfully) nor is anyone right to call the Iraq War a failure yet (though it has been disaster in terms of the cost in blood, treasure and reputation, it is possible that the long term result will be positive.) You cannot declare success until the endeavor is over and done. But, then again, I suppose this isn’t the first time conservatives have made that mistake.

By all means, engage the enemy wherever he lives. But you don’t say you won a boxing match in the 2nd round with your opponent still stnading and throwing punches.

Finally comparing the current conflicts a Crusade is ignorant and ill-informed for at least several reasons. First, our goal is not to reclaim the Holy Land for Christianity. Second, the Christians lost the Crusades. Third, calling is a Holy War (which is what a Crusade means) implies we are no better than the Islamic militants declaring Jihad (the Islamic word for Holy War).

By the way, you may want to have yourself tested for said logic gene. You appear to be deficient in it yourself.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:29:36 +0000

Well said..