It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


non-flame questions to liberal americans

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:28 AM
i'm still pretty new here, so i dunno what, if any, are ramifications of arguign with a moderator, so if i do get booted, its been nice knowing you all

Here goes.

its' really hard to get alll your thoughts across when your'e constatnly backspacing because your fingers are typing as fast as they can, but your brain is going much faster, and you fear loosing a single thought...

the reason i say that is because its very very very very near impossible to contain all your thoughts in one post, particuarly when you're debating someone and you want to get your next point on the boards before someone else posts and bumps you up and possibly out of sight.

So allow me to lay this out there, this is me, and the way i view myself. Regardless of what others may percieve me as.

I do not blindly follow Bush.
My name maybe "rush baby" spelled backwards, but i dot blindly follow Rush limbaugh...infact i've called in a few times to voice my disagreement with Rush on certain issues. But ultimately, i believe in his prime directive.

I dont think Bush is our greatest president, but i also don't think he's our worst. I believe in strong leaders, now leaders who follow what their followers do. thats called a puppet, not a puppeteer. I voted for Bush in the second election because i felt he was the strongest person given the circumstances of war.

As a business owner, i catch the brunt of a lot of flak that i consider to be liberal. I've had a group of black college aged students protesting in front of one of my stores because i fired a black woman who i busted red handed stealing from my register. it was on tape, i contacted the police, she was arrested.
She got her soriety girlfriends to protest my store with signs and the whole deal, calling me a racist and a biggot. It never made national headlines though, thank God, but these girls were so blindly following what my ex-employee was saying and was not facing the facts of the situation. So when i see this kind of behavior, i immediately lash out and try to prove to them that what they're following is wrong.

I firmly believe that the iraq war was a mistake, but i also believe that it was a "honest" mistake (i use honest loosely) and here is what i mean.

There was mounds of evidence that sadaam had WMD's and it was not just the USA and great britian who thought so.
Sadaam furthered everybody's suspicions by not letting inspectors into the country. So America and its allies attacked.
Once you go in - you can't turn back. War is not a light switch that you can turn on and off when your thrist for blood calls for it.

Now that the smoke has cleared, Iran seems to be our next target..."seems to be!"

Now, the left are saying "The CIA says Iran is not a threat"
SO my ultimate problem here is this.

The CIA gave intelligence report after report after report to the president post-9/11 and pre shock and awe that said Sadaam had WMD's.

So you're telling me you believe them about Iran, after they were 'wrong' about Iraq? (personally i knwo without a dobut that Sadaam had WMD's, he just got the hell rid of them during his weeks of delay for inspectors)

I can't find the logic with "i'll believe your reports when it fits my agenda"

It pisses me off.


am i conservative? By my definition, yes
but yours? maybe not.

The only person i trust 100% is myself and my wife and God. Thats' it, all others are subject to random searches and profiling, but thats to protect my interest and way of life. If it offends them, fine, they dont have to be in my life.

If another arab hijacks a plane and crashes into a university or something, liberals and dems alike will be crying for more protection. How can you protect if you cant enforce?

Thats my problem.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:50 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
blah blah blah blah

not actual answers, just the same excuses.

Actually multiple posters have answered your questions multiple times, you just refuse to listen and refer to their answers as "excuses"

Oh - and to the guy who said Mexicans are slaves...omfg you made my day. "We dont give them the same rights as merican workers"

Apparently you don't know how quotes work. I have to actually say what you quote, verbatim, in order for you to quote it. Please do not misquote me, as it is insulting.

no kidding??????WOW what a novel thought

maybe because they....oh....ARENT AMERICAN CITIZENS

Where's your bleeding #ing heart for the americans who dont have a job because of these illegal imigrants?

I actually predicted this response in my post...

Case in point - slavery does not exist. if you think it does, then you are just arguing with me because im conservative and if you agreed with me, your world would come tumbling to an end.

Case in what point? What point have you made? You have not provided any proof that slavery does not exist, whereas others have provided multiple examples of slavery, even if it isn't in the USA. You are making unfounded conclusions here.

im done with this topic, i did it to prove to myself and the ppl on my friends list that no liberal could actually answer my questions.

I'm sure the folks on your friends list will be as unimpressed with this thread as I am. You have proven absolutely nothing except that you have come to this forum asking questions and refusing to acknowledge the answers to those questions.

you people crack me up.

See ya later. Im going back to a place where things make sense.

I'm sure Rush Limbaugh makes just about all the sense you can handle.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:59 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
how dare you insinuate otherwise you racist pig, ill flame you on that one, beucase you make a dispicable statement.

I had a feeling this thread was an explosion waiting to happen. Lol.

People of African descent have not been the only slaves in the world.

The Proclamation of 1625 ordered that Irish political prisoners be transported overseas and sold as laborers to English planters, who were settling the islands of the West Indies, officially establishing a policy that was to continue for two centuries. In 1629 a large group of Irish men and women were sent to Guiana, and by 1632, Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat in the West Indies. By 1637 a census showed that 69% of the total population of Montserrat were Irish slaves, which records show was a cause of concern to the English planters. But there were not enough political prisoners to supply the demand, so every petty infraction carried a sentence of transporting, and slaver gangs combed the country sides to kidnap enough people to fill out their quotas.

That is just one example of non-African slavery, there are others as well.

As for the slavery in America today comment, groups who monitor slavery around the world count as slaves people who have been promised help immigrating, and then are locked into factories once they arrive here and forced to work there for indeterminate periods of time. It goes on in the US today.

Edit to add;

War has not eradicated slavery in the world, nor Nazism, nor communism, nor fascism. It may have stopped it in localized areas, for a period of time, but it hasnt eradicated it. Dont forget, some wars have increased slavery, war was what allowed communism to assert itself as a political force in the first place, Nazi's used war to spread Nazism, etc., so whats the point?

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:02 AM
What mexicans experience is not slavery

it might be considered exploitation - but that is far far far from slavery.

You are ignorant on the topic, so allow yet another conservative to educate you

A slave is someone who is 100% under the control of a slave owner. I have not misquoted you - you have mis spoke. you found your flaws and you are just pissed that i pointed them out

now back to my point

a slave could not leave their slave house.
an illegal mexican can.

There's nothing stopping an illegal mexican from returning home. hell, if they make a phone call, they'd even get a free ride home. Might be on a bus with other illegal law breaking criminal bastards from south of the border, but hey - free is free. So - no - they are not slaves.

And nobody has asnwered my questions [edit on 29-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

Moderator edit: Discuss the issues. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS

[edit on 29-5-2008 by Byrd]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:05 AM

i never once said that other forms of slavery have not existed through history. I am refuting what this liberal is saying. he is saying that slavery is still previlant in today's world. He's saying it still exists in thsi country and other countries all around the world, but the only example he can provide is that illegal immigrant law breaking criminals from mexico that are in the US are slaves.

i fail to see how they are. They are criminals, yes. They desrve to go home. yes. But slaves? You distort the true meaning on the word slave.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:16 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur

i fail to see how they are. They are criminals, yes. They desrve to go home. yes. But slaves? You distort the true meaning on the word slave.

In the case of illegal immigrants held as slaves in America today, they are not all from Mexico, some are from other Latin American countries and others from various parts of Asia.

Why they are considered slaves is they are NOT free to leave. Some are beaten, raped, etc. much like slaves from the past. Some people are bought as slaves in other countries and then imported to this country, (not tricked as is the case with some illegals.)

Here is a link on PBS about modern US slavery.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:47 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur

A slave is someone who is 100% under the control of a slave owner. I have not misquoted you - you have mis spoke. you found your flaws and you are just pissed that i pointed them out

You did misquote me.

"We dont give them the same rights as merican workers"

That was your misquote. I never said that anywhere, with or without the typo. That is the definition of a misquote. I could not have mis-spoken, as I never said that in the first place.

Your guise of intellectualism is wearing thin.

but to anyone with 1/2 a brain stem, you are as see through as a glass of water.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

I'm a little confused with what you mean here. Since you have half a brain stem, maybe you could sort that out a little for me?

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:34 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
Okay, ill take your advice and concentrate on one.

What im absolutely flabergasted by is this "slavery is still alive in the united states" because i'd really love to hear it, im not opposed to it, but i've never heard anyone say it before, even coming from discussions with black people about race.

Most people are "flabbergasted" to hear that slavery is still alive and well. Here's some info from a US report about it.

according to the U.S. State Department, during 2001, at least 700,000 and potentially as many as 4 million men, women and children worldwide were bought, sold, transported and held against their will in slave-like conditions.
While the report focuses on person-trafficking in eighty-nine other countries, Secretary Powell reported that some 50,000 women and children are trafficked annually for sexual exploitation into the United States. "Here and abroad," said Powell, "the victims of trafficking toil under inhuman conditions -- in brothels, sweatshops, fields and even in private homes."

Oh - and no - you dont have a constitutional right to a private phone call. As i said, the phone companies are not owned by the govt, and if you actually read your disclosure rights in your agreement with your phone company - it expresses that clause in there.

Oh yes you do. US law requires that the only way your phone information can be given out is via subpoena/warrant issued by a judge. Why would that be? Maybe to protect an innocent persons privacy?

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:35 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
oh, and, why cant you answer more than 1 question?

They are not hard questions what so ever.

Just curious but who are you talking to? If you use the reply button, whomever you are interested in conversing with will know who they are.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by ybab hsur

about the phone company - it does not explicity say "the govt can spy on you" but it does say that they will comply to the full extent with law officials. That means "IF YOU ARE BREAKING THE LAW"

Basically it goes like this

They wiretap you using these clauses in phone company contracts. Dont like it? Dont use the phone company. Mostly landlines, btw.

The way it's supposed to go is that if they have evidence you are doing something wrong, they take said evidence to a judge to get permission to wiretap your phone. The judge decides whether the evidence is valid or it's a fishing expedition. If the judge determines that their evidence is sufficient, he issues a warrant for law officials to wiretap your phones, etc... Before the phone company can comply with a wiretap request, they MUST receive a warrant for the wiretap to be legal.

If they find you are doing terrorist activity - they seek a warrant to wiretap you to appease the liberals who hate america. Simple as that.
This is part of the illegal warrantless wiretap program. Legally, it doesn't happen this way.

If you are hiding nothing then why are you opposed to this?

Hey and let's let them go through our bank records, monitor where we drive, what we buy, go through our personal receipts, stop by and search our homes, require us to provide lists of all our friends and associates, issue travel papers and checkpoints if we leave our county of residence, strip search us without cause, etc.. Of course you would also agree with all these things unless you're hiding something????
You may want to live in a police state but I have no interest. I believe in the US Constitution and believe the following:
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance".

I really cannot grasp that concept - i am not flaming - i am seriously appauled that people would be opposed to safety.

I'm apualed by anyone who wants to disband The United Stated Constitution!!

you are not loosing "freedom"
you are no more free to a non-monitored phone call than you are to walk in the street and not have someone eavesdrop on your conversation.

Ever hear of the term INVASION OF PRIVACY???

Perfect example:

i can remember when i was a kid, and the cordless phones were the "thing of the future" you could pickup on your nieghbors phone calls with your cordless phone, if they too, had a cordless

There was no outcry about that.

Actually there was that is why they've changed the technology. There were many privacy concerns.

Look, i see what you're saying. I see that you believe you have the right to an unmonitored phone call. But how can you say that you would allow the terrorists to exploit that "right" and endanger us?

Every freedom we have can be exploited by terrorist. The only way for you to be perfectly safe is to remove ALL our freedoms. I'm willing to deal with the threat of terrorism in our country to keep what little freedoms we have left.

So why are you so against finding them before they kill us?

[edit on 28-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

I'm not against getting the bad guys before they get us but we as a free nation need to follow certain rules. We don't break the law to arrest someone. You don't torture someone to get information. etc..

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:07 AM

Originally posted by ybab hsur
reply to post by drwizardphd

and there is not a descendant of black slavery who should not want to beat you down for comparing what mexicans put themselves into, and what blacks were forced into

how dare you insinuate otherwise you racist pig, ill flame you on that one, beucase you make a dispicable statement.

Well there are still REAL slaves around the world and in the US RIGHT NOW, who are being forced to do things just as bad and worse then african american slaves in early america.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 06:33 AM
I hate to tell you rush baby but slavery is alive and well in the USA. In fact, I am a cop, and there is an indivdual in jail right now that is in here for human trafficing. All over the world people are abducted and sold into slavery. Mostly sex slaves. It sounds unreal, but it IS the TRUTH. Sex slave rings are all over the USA as well.

Denial is bad for you.

As for the wiretapping... dose anyone on here know any American citizen that has had their phone illegally wiretapped? I didn't think so. I'm sure someone will come out of the wood work and say they heard "heavy breathing" during their call.
Give me a break. Us cops still have to go through all the same process as before, all the Patriot Act did was clear out some of the red tape. And isn't there something out there about airwaves being public domaine. And is it illegal if it was passed by Congress?

Lastly... you libs out there need to understand that just because a person lives in the United States of America doesn't mean they are granted, unconditionally, the same rights as a US citizen.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 09:43 AM
These all come from page 1 of this argument, bottom of the page. From FredT

He atleast answered my first question. I disagree with his opinion, but he atleast answered it. Thank you.

Is it any different than Bush slapping the Axis of Evil lable on them? Are you saying. At anyrate what make say Chavez any different? Should we invade his country too?
Once again - answering my question with a question of your own. Another person earlier in page 1 says that Ahmenijad has the right to speak this way. Wow. I think we need to start suspicioning him
Seriously though - if Bush were to make an Anti-Britian speech and say "the revolutionary war never happened, lets kill Britian" .... that'd be the same thing as Iran's president, but you would have aproblem with Bush.

We did not win in an actualy war over Communism rather we bankrupted them in an arms race. Now the irony is we are tanking our economy by engaging in a pointless war that is now bankruption our economy
I agree with you that we bankrupted them. But, to quote a very cheesy movie "Ask anyone here, it doesnt matter if you win by an inch or a mile, a win is a win". It was great that we defeated communism without military force. But why do you feel compelled to deny america that victory???? Also - what about our economy is going bankrupt?

Perhaps the CIA is being a bit more objective now? And we are seeing the real data not the post Cheney Rummy embelishments.
This is a legit answer, but i disagree because of this: Liberals are all one in the same in the sense that they'll believe anyone who fits their agenda. When the CIA is giving useful information to Bush, you're against the CIA. When the CIA is blasting Bush, you're for the CIA. Now - to apply the same logic of your response to another situation - What if the Bush Administration got it right about Iran? Are you going to refuse to consider that? Or, 10 years from now, when Iran nukes Israel off this planet, will you say "it was bush's fault" ?

So you as absolute dictator of country X would simply allow the UN to prance about your country? How come Isreal does not let them in?
If i had nothing to hide, and i hate the entire world screaming for me to do so - you bet your ass i would. I would not want my country to suffer for my ignorance. But if i had weapons i didnt want the world to know about, i would deny them entrance and stretch it out as far as i could. Here's another example of liberal ideology. You support then UN when they're against Bush, but cast them out when they are on his side. Unbelievable.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Logic is an idea that applies equal to all circumstances, not just the ones you wish to cherry pick.

These are the typical liberal responses.

you answer my questions with questions of your own. Try to refrain from that because it proves you have no answer. When you do that, you are doing nothing but proving me right. Here's an outside the conversation video that show you what im talking about Click Here he cannot answer a single question straight up because he knows he's wrong.

I am not flaming you, moderator, because quite frankly i dont want you to ban me
But i must say that i firmly stand against your blind hatred for bush, because it puts this country in more peril than it deserves.

[edit on 29-5-2008 by ybab hsur]

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 10:04 AM
Also - i think Israel should allow weapons inspectors. But should we invade them??? NO! Why? Because they're not attacking anyone. Their leader is not spewing Hitler'esque speech.

Thats why Iran is there.

I also believe we should be pressuring Korea, because you can bet your ass that they have nukes too. So dont use that as a response.

The question is why should we not attack Iran and stop a potential nuclear holocaust?

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by ybab hsur

When a moderator posts his or her opinion on a thread, they're posting as a member.

We weren't grown in test tubes (well, supermods were, but that's another story), we were selected from the membership. If one of the conditions of being a moderator was that I could no longer post as a member, I would have said thanks, but no thanks.

We're entitled to our opinions and you're entitled to your opinions. You will NEVER be penalized or punished or banned for disagreeing with a moderator about a topic of discussion.

That said, I think it's pretty clear that you've failed to directly address any of the points I made in my last post.

I'd like to make a couple more points...

- The CIA is not a homogenous entity - they do not share one mind or one set of values/goals any more than all McDonalds employees share one mind or one set of values/goals. It's ludicrous to suggest that.

Certain elements of the CIA were behind the agenda of the administration, while other elements were extremely displeased with the way the whole affair happened.

CIA agents lied then, and CIA agents may be telling the truth now. They're not infallible, they're human, just like we are.

- You said communism, nazism, facism and slavery are defeated? Look around...

Slavery is alive and well in parts of Asia and Eastern Europe. The number one consumer of sex slaves is the USA - no argument, that's a fact. The ideals of Nazism and Facism are, likewise, alive and well in any number of places.

To say that we defeated fascism when Hitler kicked the bucket is fallacious and naive.

I certainly can't use my moderator status to make you answer my points, but it would be appreciated...

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 01:13 PM
It might be interesting to note that not only African slaves where sold on the block in the south but poor whites who owed monies to local land owners and shop owners. Endentured servants was a polite metaphore for white slavery in this country!! Just didn't want to let this pass!

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by ybab hsur

Uhhh... your fellow conservative Glenn Beck just wrote an incredible article for contending that illegal immigrants are, without a doubt, 'corporate slaves' here in America. Before you get appalled (and check your spelling, friend), please check the following:

Is Glenn Beck a 'racist pig?' Personally, I can't stand the guy (he's barely one step above blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity), but I don't think he's a racist.

Cool out, buddy.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:24 PM
What makes you label yourself a conservative and someone else a liberal? How do you qualify your positions? What about those that have beliefs incorporated by both positions? What is it that conservative ideologists think is better than that of the liberal leaners? Why do think America should only think in one way and not the incorporation of all of its constituents?

There, 5 for you.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
reply to post by ybab hsur

I am a conservative..

What does that mean? Do you mean to say that you agree with the Republicans in power, or do you mean to say that you are a textbook conservative.

Lemme tell you, I was raised by a conservative family, and I couldn't agree less with what this administration has been doing.

Fiscally conservative Republicans who believe in small government are a fading memory. Few people alive today can even recall a Republican during their lifetime who ACTUALLY FOLLOWED the party rhetoric on these fronts.

Time out. You are confusing a political party with an ideology. They are not one and the same.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Big government has never been bigger, and if these so-called conservatives (or neo-conservatives) are anything but Hawk Democrats playing bait and switch with middle America, I'll be a monkey's uncle.

There was a thread recently where Ron Paul called neo-cons extreme left wingers, so what you say may be true.

1.) Give me ample examples of which rights of yours have been stripped by bush since 9/11

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

I can't ride a train or fly on an airplane without being searched in the absence of probable cause.

Many venues, including transportation and public buildings, have had security detectors long before Bush or 9/11.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The FBI has released bulletins asking local law enforcement to be on the lookout for terrorists in the guise of tourists, artists, students, and homeless people. Tell me that the rights of these people to fair and equal treatment has not been violated...

What is wrong with that? Acting on intelligence in the sense of being diligent and aware is not a crime. And the practice has been followed since there were law enforcement agencies. Carried to the extreme, it's called "profiling".

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Thought crime is now a reality - anyone whose words can be construed as support for terrorism can legally be charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism - even if they never amass weapons or make material preparations. Simply commenting on the need for a domestic regime change could, under the current legal language, be construed as the modern version of sedition...

Then I guess we'd better arrest Obama, Clinton, and McCain, along with Ron Paul and all the rest of the runners-up, since that is part of their campaign pitch.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The right of citizens to travel freely has been infringed by random roadblocks and checkpoints. This is expected in territories ruled over by warlords or dictators, but it is not par for the course in a free country.

Where in the US is this happening?

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The right to privacy has been thoroughly compromised thanks to warrant-less wiretaps and surveillance.

I'd like to know where the words "right to privacy" appear in the Constitution.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

How about the right to assemble peacefully? How about the right to vote (still in effect in non-swing states, admittedly)? How about the rights of the states to regulate their own affairs without the intrusion of the federal government?

All still in full effect, as far as I can tell.

posted on May, 29 2008 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by ybab hsur

1.) Give me ample examples of which rights of yours have been stripped by bush since 9/11

Why would I have to give ample? Okay, not flaming you but I don’t understand why ‘ample’ examples would need to be given. If one right was stripped then it should be enough.

First off, I want to point out that he is NOT the worst president in our history when it comes to attacking the rights of Americans and the constitution. People like Nixon and Wilson come to mind as worse offenders. But, since this is here and now and when we are alive it is most relevant.

However, here is what I can come up with without digging:

• Freedom of speech: He instated a new proclamation where one is not allowed to question the actions of the president and his administration when it comes to this war and 911. If you do you risk having all of your assets seized by the government. He prevents anything negative to be shown about Iraq or he seriously has had the information changed. For example, he still won’t allow any photo’s of the flag draped caskets coming home from this unlawful war to be taken.
• Also, his administration forced the EPA to change key phrases in their assessment of ground zero pollutants and safety in order to put things in a brighter light. These changes have caused the illness and deaths of thousands of first response workers.
• He constantly hides behind the ‘National Security’ shield when he is pressed on key issues. He also switches to insults by telling people that if they are not with him then they are with the enemy. No in between leaving no room for thought or questions.
• He has created the ‘free speech zones’ which are a direct assault on our freedom to protest against this government when we feel they are in the wrong. In other words, you not only have to apply for the permit but you are now limited to a cordoned off area that is usually away from public and media view. This is simply not right. The best protests are the ones that are in plain view and march right down the avenue up to the White House. You can’t do that anymore.
• Under this president the Patriot Acts were passed. There is ‘vague’ literature in these acts that make it possible to name ANYONE that commits a crime of any type as a ‘terrorist’ thus removing their civil rights.
• Unlawful search and seizures. Due to the Patriot Acts this is no longer in effect. The government can search your premises and seize anything they deem as necessary if ‘they’ believe it is evidence. Even if it isn’t you have no rights to fight back. They can even do these search and seizures WITHOUT your knowledge.
• We have a right to question our government and EXPECT a truthful answer. This administration has stripped that right from us by continually lying to us. They have been caught in many lies about the war in Iraq and the reason’s for initially going in.

Need I answer more on this question? I can. I could probably keep going. But of course many people will either refute or justify each and every one of so it really doesn’t matter. Here’s the killer my friend. I have strong conservative roots. I have voted Republican in EVERY presidential election I have been able to. That means YES I voted for Bush all three times.

2.) How is Iran's president ahmenijad (sp?) not practicing hate speech when he's talking about Jews

This is legitimate but I don’t understand how this is a liberal issue. I’m confused here. However, you have to take into account the history between these two religions and cultures. The Jews have been hated by many Middle Eastern peoples for thousands of years. THEY hate the Middle Eastern peoples just as much. You can’t look at his speeches in the same light as what you would expect from say and American president toward the Jewish people. They hate each other and I am still confused as to how this is a liberal problem.

3.) Except for ending Slavery, Nazism, Facism, and Communism.....

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in