Comments for Want Poverty, Oppression and War? Vote Republican! »
Posted By populist 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsThe Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what's wrong with that? "If we don't kill them over there, they will kill us over here."
Read Full Story at populistamerica.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 81
-
75%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As poverty rates have increased, oppression lies in wait under the guise of the 'patriot act', & 'war' exists under this moronic group of republicans, I'd say that the comment " Want Poverty, Oppression and War? Vote Republican!" is redundant. True, but redundant.
Reply-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As facts show that poverty is up, as facts show that the patriot act gives undue power over citizens, and as we are involved in a war shown to be flawed in its inception, I'm curious as to why you disagree. Would appreciate your input.
Reply
-
-
67%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bill Clinton reluctantly going into Kosovo after getting 100% backing from NATO, China and Russia... and not losing a soldier to enemy fire... while Blair had offered 150,000 ground troops as enticement... is vastly different than Bush lies to go to war to eliminate a guy who tried to Kill his daddy.
Reply
Got any other proof that the Dems are as culpable... other than their being deceived by Dumya?
Dems never hid energy meeting minutes or classified them to hide the truth of the roots of war for oil! Forget the most continous prosperity of the country under Clinton in spite of 7 years of near fruitless, repug instigated investigations of him? Forget that Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating in spite of the repug obstructionism?
-
-
davidhallstromComment removed: Spammer1 Reply
-
14%
Buzzy11 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How infantile the analogy of voting Republican equals voting for war
Reply
While Iraq 2 may have been a mistake George Herbeert WalkerBush gave us Iraq 1--would you rather not have gone in then and let Hussein rule the entire Mideast?and as to Afghanistan I don't believe there are many Democrats , certain Clinton, Biden, and Obama, that upported that war after 9/11. It seems like your whole case is you didn't like one war, Iraq II--which among wars in the 20th and 21st century while displaying savegery on all sides is still relatively small
And while we are at it didn''t Wilson , a Democrat take us to war in WWI, FDR, a Democrat in WWII, Truman a Democrat in the Korean War, First Kennedy then Johnson in the Vietnam War and Clinton into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia?
I think your partisanship for what are undoubtedly socially driven ideology has caused you to grossly oversimplfy the history of foreign involvements-
50%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Herbert had that preemptive war in Panama too! Remember the Herbert lie of having that Kuwaiti diplomat's daughter claim the hospital baby killings by Iraqis? Only party with presidential cabinet convictions in 3 different repug adminstrations (watergate, iran contra & Plamegate) and supports torture, preemptive war, unilateralism, gitmo, the loss of 8oo years of accepted western law, eavesdropping w/o a warrant... the list of evil, corrupt behavior is solely in the hands of the repugs!
Reply
-
-
17%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a biased left wing bunch of stuff left behind from the south end of a north bound bull.
Reply
Some facts since 1900
WW1 President Wilson Democrat
WW2 President Roosevelt Democrat
Korea President Truman Democrat
Viet Nam President Kennedy Democrat
Bay of Pigs President Kenedy Democrat
Grenada President Reagan Republican
Panama President Reagan Republican
Gulf War President Bush Republican
Bosnia President Clinton Democrat
Herzegovina President Clinton Democrat
Afghanistan President Bush Republican
Iraq President Bush Republican
6 Democrat
5 Republican
This leave out the things like Blackhawk down and some missles that Clinton sent.
Which party is the biggest warmonger. It looks like the Democrats have the lead.-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually, World War I was an idiotic war we should have never been involved in that didn't involve the United States in the slightest.
Reply
The best thing to come from it was the tearing apart of the old Empires.
The worst thing to come from it was the Treaty of Versailles, foisted on Germany by European powers who wished to make them pay for the full cost of the war. This Treaty eventually led to World War 2 and Hitler.
-
-
-
-
-
82%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 3 months ago
-
-
100%
david_nwpa1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Generally speaking, I agree. However, how do you explain the country's relative prosperity during Eisenhower's terms? The country had a period of relative prosperity through the 1950s. During the term of Theodore Roosevelt after McKinley died, the nation underwent a series of more populist terms.
Reply
I am not a Republican and one glance at any of my other posts show that. However, to be fair, one should consider that the Republican party has changed substantially since Richard Nixon was President. Furthermore, since Reagan was in office, the economic conservative traditions of the Republican party have shifted further right.-
100%
Dionys1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The 'good years' of the 50s was due to a ramp of of rampant capitalism post WWII. The patriotic sacrifices of the war became a loud cry of "buy more crap you don't need!" You should really read all about the rise of capitalism and the idea that people should buy more crap instead of conserving.
Reply -
100%
miklkit1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the 1950s America was the only undamaged industrial power left. Europe and Japan were rebuilding their war ravaged countries and were buying our products. We had it pretty good back then.
Reply
Here is a graph showing national debt since WW2.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html -
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ike was an enigma to the Republican party. Here are his thoughts on spending and saving.
Reply
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/speeches/19590225%20Remarks%20at%20the%20US%20Savings%20Bond%20Conference.htm -
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
After Teddy Roosevelt and his progressive revolution within the Republican Party, the business forces which play in the background of the GOP unseated him. Remember, the only reason he became President in the first place was because McKinley died; at that time, the VP slot was considered an end to the political career. The business arm of the Republicans foisted the office on him to kill his career before it could properly begin. Thus we had the youngest President in American history. After that we had an era of progressive Republicans that ended with Ike, for the most part. Maybe even before that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
17%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a bunch of garbage. Things were great under Eisenhower.
Reply
Then going under Kennedy there was the beginnings of inflation. When Johnson took office it started climbing.
Nixon took over ant the same thing happened. Ford became president and it started leveling off mostly because he vetoed every spending bill he could get away with.
Then came Carter. Ugh. Stagflation through the roof with double digit inflation. Had my biggest raises then just to keep the same buying power.
Reagan took over and the inflation went down even though the Democrats projected gloom and doom. Things kept getting better and better. Bush took over and more of the same.
Clinton came along and the offsetting biggest tax increase in history was coupled with the balanced budget forced on him by the Republicans. Going into his last year there was a drop in my 401K of 1/6.
The first year of Bush another drop of 1/6 and then everything went up again in the stock market. Things have prospered even though the Super libs talk back and forth about how bad it is.
The problem the Libs have is when asked how they or anyone they personally know the is doing answer is just fine. Then they go on to rant about how bad everybody else has it. Then the same old tired story about how the poor keep on getting poorer and the rich keep on getting richer. The main problem is the definition of poor and rich keep changing.-
75%
miklkit1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You need to look at this graph. Your version of history happens to be incorrect.
Reply
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
You also seem to forget about "Read my lips, no new taxes" Herbert. -
-
-
-
86%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
david - I do not recall the economy being so great under Ike, times were pretty hard, low pay but the cost of living was cheaper. I thought Nixon was a pretty good president and did pretty well for the people...at least he cared about them. Then Reagan came along and the country began a shift to the right. Reagan was the first to spend like a drunken sailor and we ended up with a rather large national debt. Bush 1 & 2 carried on the "trickle down' theory. Now we have a huge national debt that continues to grow daily. The republican party used to care about the working classes at one time, but after Reagan they concentrated on Corporations and the rich leaving the "little people" behind.
Reply-
20%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Poor little crybaby. Under Eisenhower the country had come out of WW2 and Korea. The returning servicemen from Korea were a bit of a problem but almost all people could go after the American dream. My father earned about $50 a week but gas was $.25/gal and $5.00 would but food for a week. We had all we needed and then some.
Reply
Reagan understood what Kennedy did. That companies do not pay taxes. The customers of companies pay the companies taxes. Both fought to lower the top tax rates and succeeded. Guess what. It brought in more money in taxes.
Liberals don't seem to understand what these two understood. When you make laws about taxes people change the way they handle money.
Remember that under Reagan and Bush there was a tax and spend Democrats running Congress most of the time. Democrats knuckled under to the tax cuts but pushed even harder on the spending. But you blame the spending on the President. -
-
-
Mr-CrusherComment removed: Abusive
-
100%
simonsez1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The fifties were very good with home ownership on the rise, companies that had been involved in the war effort expanding into consumer products, families able to function on one salary and a strong sense of country.
Reply
The parents of the veterans had been through the depression and were careful with their finances and prices were generally low.
There was no TV to speak of, at least in rural areas, so we grew up not knowing what we didn't know. We were allowed to be kids and do what kids do.
It was a good time to be young ... -
-
-
89%
not2needy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FSU, all you want is a free ride. You want to live here and pay no taxes, you want the govt to take care of all your needs while your income is all yours, giving nothing for the country to operate on. Republican thought pattern never cease to amaze me.
Reply-
25%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Democrat pattern never ceases to amaze me. Take everything you can get from the working people to give it to those who don't even want to work. Give everybody health care from the government even though the example of England is very depressing. Arthritis and heart disease patients self medicate and seeing a doctor takes months to get in to see one. Big line to get an operation and hope when the time comes it will still be performed and not disallowed. What a system. You want to inflict that here. Why.? A female MP in Canada came here for breast surgery. Why if it is so good there?
Reply
Conservative want to help THOSE IN NEED not those who want it. We are willing to pay for it and looking at who gives to charities we back up our mouths with our pocket book but Liberals are mostly talking about taking other peoples money to do it. Get that beam out of your eye first.
-
-
100%
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama is a harvard lawyer with a big house, 2 best sellers and a firm belief in the spirit of competition.
Reply
Can't really call him a marxist unless you like the word 'marxist' more than the word 'truthfull'.
as for taxes, - if it is bad to tax and spend, it is worse to spend without the guts to tax. Deficit spending is merely taxation deferred; it is leaving the bill on the doorstep of the next administration, ringing the bell and running like heck away.-
33%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Looking at his web site leads me to believe he is so far to the left as to be a socialist.
Reply
Taxes are something that liberals NEVER understand with the exception of JFK. He lowered taxes and the government received a shock. Much bigger revenues from taxes. How could this be? Since then when the tax rate goes up revenues go down and when the tax rates go down the revenues go up. Liberals only want to believe it is the other way around. The house Republican a few years ago asked the budget office what would happen if they taxed at a 100% rate. They were given a huge figure. They had a big chuckle out of that. Question - How long would you work if everything you earned went as taxes? Personally I would quit the first week and find some way to do things by barter. Why do liberals think people don't change their behavior when money becomes an issue. They change it to get it and change it to keep it.-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy; very simply, you are saying what you think ought to be true; not what is.
Reply
The Bush Tax Cuts have increased revenue?
Nothing of the sort has occurred.
You can not run a house on borrowed money Nor can you run a country in such a way.
Tax cuts without spending cuts is deficit spending, - you still pay the bill, plus interest.
And this is not theory. This is where we are.
-
-
-
-
-
-
25%
gattoprtrchy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Some of these posts are really funny. I seem to recall how well people were doing when Ronald Reagan was in office. He saw a problem brewing in Grenada and took care of it practically overnight! I myself don't care which political party bares the better candidate.I'll cross party lines for the good of this country. I will admit that Bush needs to retire and go back to his ranch. But with a liberal congress presiding, how can he accomplish anything? Hillary Clinton says she would reach out to the opposing party for the good of all. But I remember watching President Bush addressing our nation immediately after the 9-11 attacks. Hillary was a disgrace in front of millions on national t.v..She stared at the ceiling while he was speaking. Rolled her eyes like an immature child! That's the Democratic party for you. They just love mud slinging and creating decension! No good can come from them.
Reply-
67%
AntiNeoCon1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And of course the right wing (holy rollers) are far above demeaning people right?
Reply
Bush had a Republican congress most of the time, thats what happened to America, they rubber stamped everything he wanted.
Where were you during this time, what planet or were you down in Florida using FSU92 for gator bait?
I'll vote for that. ;o) GO GATORS!!-
20%
gattoprtrchy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah o.k.! Right off the bat Obama wants to give millions of our dollars to Georgia and Pakistan! Another tax and spend liberal! Liberal with our money! That's how the Dems solve everthing! Throw money at it! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!
Reply-
-
0%
gattoprtrchy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's just about what I expected from an empty headed liberal like yourself! Who started the Vietnam War ? Kennedy got us into it. But I will admit the man knew it was a losing proposition. Too bad his untimely death prevented him from seeing it's end . And President Johnson escalated it! You know you should make your mind move before your mouth, but how could you? You have to have a mind in the first place!
Reply-
100%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
forget that the French lost the indochina war with our equipment and advisors and then the UN separated the country for elections which never happened leaving the UN led by the US to protect the south? At least Dems adhered to international consent and aggreement!
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And later dropped them like a hot potato while killing promised money for their defense. This after winning the war as the North Viet Nam Generals said later. Then came the killing fields and concentration camps. Millions dead and hundreds of thousands in camps. Senator Kennedy was proud of killing that bill and causing that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
jordan111 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Liberal with our money! That's how the Dems solve everthing! Throw money at it! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!!!!!!>>>>
Reply
You do realize, of course, that you you're going to pay back the billions that CONS have borrowed and squandered, right?
-
-
-
86%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well Gatto, sounds like you are easily suckered by propaganda sound bites. Under Reagan:
Reply
1. Taxes on all Americans except the super-rich were raised twice.
2. 40% of Americans lost their savings and became net debtors.
3. We had the worst economic record of any modern president (Carter had a better record on growth, wages and employment).
4. Reagan expanded and deepened the corruption in our government with enormous payouts to corrupt defence companies of the "iron triangle".
5. Reagan turned loose fundamentalist fanatics, drug dealers, arms dealers, .... to kill 300,000 christians in central america.
One could go on and on ...........-
50%
gattoprtrchy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe some might think I was easily suckered, but I remember unemployment was down. We all seemed to prosper under his administration.I was working for a company named Grumman Aerospace at the time which was doing well with it's F-14 program. I must admit that Reagan was big on the military. The one man who put a hurting on the F-14 program was that creep **** Cheney. God forgive me but I wished he had landed on his own gun instead of accidentally shooting his hunting partner.
Reply
-
-
-
-
75%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't lie to us simon, we've seen you defend Dumya too much already! Couldn't even give examples to support your lie, so typically repug of you!
Reply
Repug Congress energy bill threw out all the energy anti-monopoly laws and the Bush FEC dropped collateral requirements in 2004 for wall street transactions to unleash the oil speculators.... its only the threat of a Dem bill to bring the speculators under control that has brought the recent drop in prices!-
0%
Endoscopy1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The subprime mess was caused by the liberals in congress wanting to help out the poorer people be able to obtain the American dream of owning their own house. Laudable goals but done poorly. The forced the change in the FEC rules to allow the subprimes to exist. When the person does not have a good enough credit rating or able to come up with a down payment then the interest rates are raised. That makes a larger payments and them to really be less able to afford it. Better banks only dealt with the cream of the crop. Their default rate is lower and covered by the raised interest rates which is why they have them. The banks that took a lower level of people are the ones that are in trouble. A some of them that were semi government them were pushed some by the Democrats. What a plan libs. Way to go.
Reply
Then you libs have stonewalled building refineries and Nuclear power plants. 1976 is the last time that a Refinery has been started to be built. Libs created laws that forced ALL refineries to make ALL of the different gas formulas that any part of the country decides it needs. That forced out of business the smaller companies that had refineries. Those were torn down. A permit was given to build one in 2000. What happened to it on the way to the contractors? Were there too many law suits from every environmental wacko group going? The Tree huggers pushed with the libs to prevent any drilling in the areas with known oil. Then you try to say it is the Republicans fault? What are you drinking.
No drilling. No refineries. No nuclear power plants. Increased demand. Limited supply by the suppliers. Have to send oil out to be refined. What a plan. Then point fingers elsewhere when the plan produces very high Gas prices.
-
-
75%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well yes, Phil Gramm (McCain's chief economic advisor) was absolutely critical in establishing the mechanisms for the presently massive financial corruption. This will cost taxpayers at least a trillion dollars and is right in line with McCain's involvement in the Saving and Loans scandal of the Reagan/Bush administration that also cost taxpayers an arm and a leg to pay off a corrupt "elite".
Reply
-
-
MrXfromPlanetXComment removed: Spam
-
-
20%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''McCain is preaching war for 100 years.''
Reply
fabrication
here's what he said, not that it matters
utility trumps truth every time in politics
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk
does a hundred years 'as long as Americans are not being hurt, wounded or killed' sound like 'preaching war'?
if there are wars where no one gets hurt-well, those'd be my kinda wars
It's a ridiculous statement & makes no sense, but why lie about it? [rhetorical-I know there's an election to be won]
of course to a degree the problem goes back to other lies, told by other people, who wanted to call Iraq a war after a certain point to get people to support a foreign occupation
what McCain is calling for is continued occupation
---
I've already analyzed the atrociousness of his statement. It has nothing to do with the lie that McCain is calling for 100 years of war
by saying 'as long as no Americans are hurt' we'll stay for 100 years, McCain is in effect TELLING people who DON"T want us in Iraq to HURT Americans, then he'd no longer be OK with continued occupation, and hence would want to leave.
It's an asinine and potentially treasonous thing to say, but is not 'preaching war for 100 years'-
-
75%
donald511 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
continued occupation of an Arab state for 100 years just gurantees three more generations of radical Moslem terrorists more.... would you like 100 years of Arab occupation of America? You will always have an "Ugly American" perspective until you can put yourself in the other man's shoes!
Reply-
25%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
that's not the point donald
Reply
the point is the 100 years quote has been deliberately misquoted and misconstrued for political purposes
If you've even read a percentage of my posts on here, you would know that I can empathize with the best of'em, and do not support McCain, but the truth
that you would think that I am supporting continued occupation with my post is rather silly
pointing out it's raining is not an endorsement for getting wet -
-
-
hyperbolaComment removed: Spam
-
80%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McCain is EXACTLY about keeping America at war for the next 100 years. That has become the means for controlling the American population and continuing the fleecing of Americans for a corrupt "elite".
Reply
Reagan Republican: Are You Ready For Nuclear War?
To keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/19/reagan-republican-are-you-ready-for-nuclear-war/
How To Conceal Massive Economic Collapse - Wag the Dog
What to do? War and threats of war have been used historically to distract the population and deflect public scrutiny from economic calamity. this tactic is now rampant in the US.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/18/how-to-conceal-massive-economic-collapse-wag-the-dog/-
67%
hyperbola1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
US missile defence - magic pudding that will never run out
Reply
Poland is just the latest fall guy for an American foreign policy dictated by military industrial lobbyists in Washington. The good news is, at the present rate of progress, reliable missile defence is only 50 years away. The bad news is it has been 50 years away for the past six decades - ever since 1946.
http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/08/20/us-missile-defence-magic-pudding-that-will-never-run-out/ -
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''McCain is EXACTLY about keeping America at war for the next 100 years. ''
Reply
so where do you figure '100 years' came from if not the youTube link I provided?
It's a clear case of misquoting and/or deliberately misunderstanding a quote, and the 'Lizzie Borden rule' of repetition accepted as fact
say McCain is all about war and rolling over so his corporate masters can rub his belly...well, that's all fine and dandy
but where did the 100 years number come from that you used?
that's what my post was about
----
McCain, unless medicine and geriatrics advances dramatically, will not only be dead in 100 years, but likewise unless the 'Reagen rules' of term limits is repealed, he'll only be in office for 8 tops.
so how exactly will a dead non-president keep us in Iraq for 100 years?
----
I don't want McCain in office either, but a lie is a lie.-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3U939CD3g&feature=related
Reply
I see from the negative response to what I wrote that the truth about the 100 years quote is indeed irrelevant to some
it's all about the gravy for dem potatoes, not how the gravy is made
-
-
-
100%
miklkit1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
America has been occupying Iraq for 5 years now, with our soldiers getting hurt, wounded, or killed most every day. If it's only ok to stay there if no one gets hurt, wounded, or killed then he seems to be saying it's past time to leave that place.
Reply-
100%
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 3 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
a point I've made before
Reply
like I said, McCain's is an asinine statement
----
the 'no one gets hurt' was obviously an off the cuff qualifier
muslims have a tradition of repelling the invader
as long as we're there, there will most likely be sporadic fits of violence and people who don't want us there and are willing to express that fact
----
the Bush administration chose and still choose to call these random acts of defiance and violence 'war', because, like those who misconstrued the 100 years statement, they only care about results, not the truth. It's easier to get people behind a 'war' than a costly occupation with American casualties.Just like it's more dramatic to say McCain is calling for 100 years of war than occupation.
the confusion and lies, as I already said, started with the Bush administration wanting to galvanize support for their unnecessary 'war' any way they could
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.