Dear Republican Party,

[aurik]

Since when are we "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians?"

And obviously there are going to be cases where soldiers commit crimes, but I've seen nothing to the extent that John Kerry talked about there. That second paragraph of John Kerry's statement is pretty sketchy as well. If thats what soldiers are doing over there, and he knows about it, where are the charges? If our senators can centure Rush Limbaugh for practicing his right to free speech, (thats what they did right?) surely Senator Kerry can bring charges against American troops for the things he described.

And it took to long to find just those two statements, I am not going to bother trying to find the quotes where Hillary and Harry Reid made similar statements.

So, basically you are saying "democratic leaders call troops terrorists, but I'm not going to provide ANY evidence to back this up". Neither passage you searched for said anything about troops being "terrorists".

There are hundreds of thousands of dead iraqi civilians in this conflict. This has serious ramifications. Failing to address this is failing to be a good leader.

I provided two quotes for two of the people I said that say our troops are terrorists. So no, I'm not saying "I'm not going to provide ANY evidence to back this up." I'm saying I will provide SOME evidence to back this up.

And your right they don't specifically call our troops terrorists. But Obama did say they are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What do you refer to someone who does that lol? And what do you refer to someone who does what John Kerry said?

Obama did NOT say they are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians". In your zealotry you have apparently forgotten how to read.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

But Obama did say they are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What do you refer to someone who does that lol? And what do you refer to someone who does what John Kerry said?

Even the lolfoxnews transcript doesn't take what he said that far out of context. Way to not understand fundamental English sentence structure...just read what aurik said ffs...

There is a difference in what Aurik said and what Obama said in my opinion. In my mind "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" does not translate to "collateral damage is hurting the mission in Iraq."

[Kuya]

What mind?

[evilbau]

But Obama did say they are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What do you refer to someone who does that lol? And what do you refer to someone who does what John Kerry said?

Even the lolfoxnews transcript doesn't take what he said that far out of context. Way to not understand fundamental English sentence structure...just read what aurik said ffs...

purposely misrepresenting a democrats words on fox news to score political points?! I'M SO SHOCKED. Aurik hit it on the head with what the senator's words mean.

[Correction]

But Obama did say they are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians." What do you refer to someone who does that lol? And what do you refer to someone who does what John Kerry said?

Even the lolfoxnews transcript doesn't take what he said that far out of context. Way to not understand fundamental English sentence structure...just read what aurik said ffs...

There is a difference in what Aurik said and what Obama said in my opinion. In my mind "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians" does not translate to "collateral damage is hurting the mission in Iraq."

Your opinion is based on a much farther exaggerated stretch of the imagination.

We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops that we are not just air raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there.

Aurik's interpretation would substitute the 2nd 'and' to 'which leads to the inadvertent.' It isn't as big a leap as you truncating over half the statement and coming up with 'Obama accuses US troops of air raiding villages with the intent of killing civilians.'

C'mon man you have to have enough fucking brains to see which was more likely intended...

[Kuya]

I don't know why you guys bother explaining it to him, this isn't an error in comprehension. He interpreted it as such because of his political inclination towards it. In other words, you can't argue with him about it.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Hmm, I could concede that maybe that is what he meant. If it was me, and that was what I meant, I surely would not have stated it the way he did though.

Edit: ^wrong

[Kuya]

And that handles that.

[Beckwin]

Please don't vote, Swampdonkey.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why not? You worry that I won't vote for socialism?

[Beckwin]

I'm just worried you might hurt yourself trying to figure out the ballot, that's all.

[Ishido]

ITT Generalizations about entire political parties because of the statements or actions of a select few.

Although it is far beyond me to say that the GOP does not make itself look silly quite often. Because it does.

[pohibaba]

Hope for America

[thinktank]

Ewww. Ron Paul is not as gay friendly as almost all of the nominees. Rudy may be the most inclusive Republican candidate for the nomination, but the problem is all the Republicans have one sort of fatal flaw or the other. However if I was a Democrat voting in the Democratic party I would vote for Joe Biden.

[pohibaba]

Ewww. Ron Paul is not as gay friendly as almost all of the nominees.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

While Ron Paul supports the idea that marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman, he doesn't believe in a constitutional admendment for it. He simply believes it should be left for the states to decide.

I disagree with him on this point, but I see it as a very minor disagreement. I believe that the government has no authority to issue (or not issue) marriage liscences to anyone. A marriage is between the two people getting married, and the person marrying them. No where is the government involved in that.

[thinktank]

Problem is all the nominees of either party like to throw the raw meat to the balcony, where its hard to tell who has true positions on the issues.

[The Blackrose]

I disagree with him on this point, but I see it as a very minor disagreement. I believe that the government has no authority to issue (or not issue) marriage liscences to anyone. A marriage is between the two people getting married, and the person marrying them. No where is the government involved in that.

That's great and all, but the problem lies in what a marriage entails as a government-recognized entity at this current point. Marriage grants a large number of rights that would have to be redefined if such a thing were eliminated. A lot of those rights may end up privatized (ie. wills) or not existing at all.

[pohibaba]

There's a difference between registering a marriage with the government and be required to get a license for the right to be married.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I'm just worried you might hurt yourself trying to figure out the ballot, that's all.

Well worry yourself no more.