• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

You tell 'em, George

fff

Well-known member
President Bush declared Friday that the United States and its allies "stand with the people" of war-torn Georgia against Russian "bullying and intimidation." He then left Washington for a 10-day vacation at his Texas ranch.

Bush's departure — along with the fact that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also are on vacation — underscored that the United States has no military options in Georgia despite the president's parting rhetorical shots at Moscow.

More:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/48505.html

Don't you know our enemies are shaking in their boots at the tough talk being put out by George W. Bush? We stand with you, Georgia, but right now we're going on vacation. By, by. We'll send a postcard from the ranch. BTW, Russia, you better play nice or we won't talk to you anymore. :roll:
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Who quoted it?

Are you so feeble minded that you don't realize that GW can handle things while in Crawford just as easily as he could in the Oval Office?

W only took off for 10 days...a far cry from your heroes FIVE WEEK vacay.

I swear, if you and Old Komrade had brains, you would be candidates for brain transplants.
 

fff

Well-known member
loomixguy said:
Who quoted it?

Are you so feeble minded that you don't realize that GW can handle things while in Crawford just as easily as he could in the Oval Office?

W only took off for 10 days...a far cry from your heroes FIVE WEEK vacay.

I swear, if you and Old Komrade had brains, you would be candidates for brain transplants.

"Handle things?" What a joke. Tell me what you think he's going to "handle"?

Once upon a time the Soviet Union tried to put missles on Cuban soil, 90 miles off the US coastline. We almost went to war to stop that. Since 2005 Bush has been arming and training the Georgian army not far off Russia's borders. Then that army invaded a disputed territory that wants to be Russian. Russia immediately responded by kicking Georgia's butt and the army that the US trained was shown to be far outmanned. Where's the surprise here? Why would anyone expect Russia to do anything else but protect their borders? Yet if you listen to McCain, the Russian bear is again a danger to the US. We need to stay out of their backyard.

http://cbs3.com/national/georgia.russia.conflict.2.790619.html
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Where the hell do you get your information, Frankie? Gorgian troops have not set one foot on Russian soil. This would be like sending in the National Guard to Texas to settle down some illegals and then Mexico coming across the border.

Have you wondered how Russia was able to send in so many troops and tanks in at a moment's notice? IT'S BECAUSE THEY PLANNED THE WHOLE DEAL!
 

fff

Well-known member
I never said Georgia troops set one foot in Russia. Soviet Union troops didn't set a foot on US soil either, but we were willing to go to war to keep them from putting missiles right off our cost on Cuban soil. Why is it ok for the US to be training and arming Georgian troops so close to the Russian border? Russia knows we're in no condition to interefere here, thanks to Bush's little war in Iraq. (Remember: it'll be over in two weeks, they'll wecome us with open arms, they can pay for their own reconstruction?)

'We Are All Georgians'? Not So Fast.
By Michael Dobbs

It didn't take long for the "Putin is Hitler" analogies to start following the eruption of the ugly little war between Russia and Georgia over the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia. Neoconservative commentator Robert Kagan compared the Russian attack on Georgia with the Nazi grab of the Sudetenland in 1938. President Jimmy Carter's former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, said that the Russian leader was following a course "that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s."

Others invoked the infamous Brezhnev doctrine, under which Soviet leaders claimed the right to intervene militarily in Eastern Europe in order to prop up their crumbling imperium. "We've seen this movie before, in Prague and Budapest," said John McCain, referring to the Soviet invasions of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Hungary in 1956. According to the Republican presidential candidate,"today we are all Georgians."

Actually, the events of the past week in Georgia have little in common with either Hitler's dismemberment of Czechoslovakia on the eve of World War II or Soviet policies in Eastern Europe. They are better understood against the backdrop of the complica ted ethnic politics of the Caucasus, a part of the world where historical grudges run deep and oppressed can become oppressors in the bat of an eye.

Unlike most of the armchair generals now posing as experts on the Caucasus, I have actually visited Tskhinvali, a sleepy provincial town in the shadow of the mountains that rise along Russia's southern border. I was there in March 1991, shortly after the city was occupied by Georgian militia units loyal to Zviad Gamsakhurdia, the first freely elected leader of Georgia in seven decades. One of Gamsakhurdia's first acts as Georgian president was to cancel the political autonomy that the Stalinist constitution had granted the republic's 90,000-strong Ossetian minority.

After negotiating safe passage with Soviet interior ministry troops who had stationed themselves between the Georgians and the Ossetians, I discovered that the town had been ransacked by Gamsakhurdia's militia. The Georgians had trashed the Ossetian national theater, decapitated the statue of an Ossetian poet and pulled down monuments to Ossetians who had fought with Soviet troops in World War II. The Ossetians were responding in kind, firing on Georgian villages and forcing Georgian residents of Tskhinvali to flee their homes.

It soon became clear to me that the Ossetians viewed Georgians in much the same way that Georgians view Russians: as aggressive bullies bent on taking away their independence. "We are much more worried by Georgian imperialism than Russian imperialism," an Ossetian leader, Gerasim Khugaev, told me. "It is closer to us, and we feel its pressure all the time."

When it comes to apportioning blame for the latest flare-up in the Caucasus, there's plenty to go around. The Russians were clearly itching for a fight, but the behavior of Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili has been erratic and provocative. The United States may have stoked the conflict by encouraging Saakashvili to believe that he enjoyed American protection, when the West's ability to impose its will in this part of the world is actually quite limited.

Let us examine the role played by the three main parties.

Georgia. Saakashvili's image in the West, and particularly in the United States, is that of the great "democrat," the leader of the "Rose Revolution" who spearheaded a popular uprising against former American favorite Eduard Shevardnadze in November 2003. It is true that he has won two reasonably free elections, but he has also displayed some autocratic tendencies; he sent riot police to crush an opposition protest in Tbilisi last November and shuttered an opposition television station.

While the United States views Saakashvili as a pro-Western modernizer, a large part of his political appeal in Georgia has stemmed from his promise to re-unify Georgia by bringing the secessionist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia under central control. He has presented himself as the successor to the medieval Georgian king, David the Builder, and promised that the country will regain its lost territories by the time he leaves office, by one means or another. American commentators tend to overlook the fact that Georgian democracy is inextricably intertwined with Georgian nationalism.

The restoration of Georgia's traditional borders is an understandable goal for a Georgian leader, but it is a much lower priority for the West, particularly if it involves armed conflict with Russia. Based on their previous experience with Georgian rule, Ossetians and Abkhazians have perfectly valid reasons to oppose reunification with Georgia, even if it means throwing in their lot with the Russians.

It is unclear how the simmering tensions between Georgia and South Ossetia came to the boil this month. The Georgians say that they were provoked by the shelling of Georgian villages from Ossetian-controlled territory. While this may well be the case, the Georgian response was disproportionate. On the night of Aug. 7 and into Aug. 8, Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali and sent an armored column to occupy the town. He apparently hoped that Western support would protect Georgia from major Russian retaliation, even though Russian "peacekeepers" were almost certainly killed or wounded in the Georgian assault.


It was a huge miscalculation. Russian Prime minister Vladimir Putin (and let there be no doubt that he is calling the shots in Moscow despite having handed over the presidency to his protege, Dmitri Medvedev) now had the ideal pretext for settling scores with the uppity Georgians. Rather than simply restoring the status quo ante, Russian troops moved into Georgia proper, cutting the main east-west highway at Gori and attacking various military bases.

Saakashvili's decision to gamble everything on a lightning grab for Tskhinvali brings to mind the comment of the 19th-century French statesman Talleyrand: "it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake."

Russia. Putin and Medvedev have defended their incursion into Georgia as motivated by a desire to stop the "genocide" of Ossetians by Georgians. It is difficult to take their moral outrage very seriously. There is a striking contrast between Russian support for the right of Ossetian self-determination in Georgia and the brutal suppression of Chechens who were trying to exercise that very same right within the boundaries of Russia.

Playing one ethnic group off against another in the Caucasus has been standard Russian policy ever since czarist times. It is the ideal wedge issue for the Kremlin, particularly in the case of a state such as Georgia, which is made up of several different nationalities. It would be virtually impossible for South Ossetia to survive as an autonomous entity without Russian support. Putin's government has issued passports to Ossetians and secured the appointment of Russians to key positions in Tskhinvali.

The Russian incursion into Georgia proper has been even more "disproportionate" -- in President Bush's phrase -- than the Georgian assault on Tskhinvali. The Russians have made no secret of their wish to replace Saakashvili with a more compliant leader. Russian military targets included the Black Sea port of Poti -- more than 100 miles from South Ossetia.

The real goal of Kremlin strategy is to reassert Russian influence in a part of the world that has been regarded, by czars and commissars alike, as Russia's backyard. Russian leaders bitterly resented the eastward expansion of NATO to include Poland and the Baltic states -- with Ukraine and Georgia next on the list -- but were unable to do very much about it as long as America was strong and Russia was weak. Now the tables are turning for the first time since the collapse of communism in 1991, and Putin is seizing the moment.

If Putin is smart, he will refrain from occupying Georgia proper, a step that would further alarm the West and unite Georgians against Russia. A better tactic would be to wait for Georgians themselves to turn against Saakashvili. The precedent here is what happened to Gamsakhurdia, who was overthrown a year later, in January 1992, by the same militia forces he had sent into South Ossetia.

The United States. The Bush administration has been sending mixed messages to its Georgian friends. U.S. officials insist that they did not give the green light to Saakashvili for his attack on South Ossetia. At the same time, however, the United States has championed NATO membership for Georgia, sent military advisers to bolster the Georgian army and demanded the restoration of Georgian territorial integrity. American support might well have emboldened Saakashvili as he was considering how to respond to the "provocations" from South Ossetia.

Now the United States has ended up in a situation in the Caucasus where the Georgian tail was wagging the NATO dog. We were unable to control Saakashvili or to lend him effective assistance when his country was invaded. One lesson is that we need to be very careful in extending NATO membership, or even the promise of membership, to countries that we have neither the will nor the ability to defend.

In the meantime, American leaders have paid little attention to Russian diplomatic concerns, both inside the former borders of the Soviet Union and farther abroad. The Bush administration unilaterally abrogated the 1972 anti-missile defense treaty and ignored Putin when he objected to Kosovo independence on the grounds that it would set a dangerous precedent. It is difficult to explain why Kosovo should have the right to unilaterally declare its independence from Serbia, while the same right should be denied to places such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The bottom line is that the United States is overextended militarily, diplomatically and economically. Even hawks such as Vice President Cheney, who have been vociferously denouncing Putin's actions in Georgia, have no stomach for a military conflict with Moscow. The United States is bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and needs Russian support in the coming trial of strength with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

Instead of speaking softly and wielding a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt recommended, the American policeman has been loudly lecturing the rest of the world while waving an increasingly unimpressive baton. The events of the past few days serve as a reminder that our ideological ambitions have greatly exceeded our military reach, particularly in areas such as the Caucasus, which is of only peripheral importance to the United States but of vital interest to Russia.


Michael Dobbs covered the collapse of the Soviet Union for the Washington Post. His latest book is "One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360.html?hpid=topnews
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You said Russia had to protect it's borders. Russia's borders were never threatened. You protect your borders by CROSSING that border and attack your neighbor? You think a little country like Georgia is going to attack Russia? This whole deal was a setup by the Russians, they had an army sitting at the border of a country that was no threat to them at all (explain that, please), caused a stir in GEORGIAN TERRITORY, and then used the expected intervention by the Georgian government as an excuse to invade.

Have you noticed that many leaders of countries there were part of the former Soviet Union were standing with the Georgian President? Think about that and then tell me why they would do such a thing. Look at the facts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
SHHHEEESSSHHH-- I thought thats what he was just on...
I guess playing with the lady beach ballers don't count as vacation... :shock:

cm-capture-16.jpg


Old King George has him self another record- the most vacation days taken by any President...
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
You said Russia had to protect it's borders. Russia's borders were never threatened. You protect your borders by CROSSING that border and attack your neighbor? You think a little country like Georgia is going to attack Russia? This whole deal was a setup by the Russians, they had an army sitting at the border of a country that was no threat to them at all (explain that, please), caused a stir in GEORGIAN TERRITORY, and then used the expected intervention by the Georgian government as an excuse to invade.

Have you noticed that many leaders of countries there were part of the former Soviet Union were standing with the Georgian President? Think about that and then tell me why they would do such a thing. Look at the facts.

Were our borders threatened when the Soviet Union was ready to put missiles in Cuba?

Show me which former Soviet Union countries are standing with the Georgian president. and we'll talk about it.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
You said Russia had to protect it's borders. Russia's borders were never threatened. You protect your borders by CROSSING that border and attack your neighbor? You think a little country like Georgia is going to attack Russia? This whole deal was a setup by the Russians, they had an army sitting at the border of a country that was no threat to them at all (explain that, please), caused a stir in GEORGIAN TERRITORY, and then used the expected intervention by the Georgian government as an excuse to invade.

Have you noticed that many leaders of countries there were part of the former Soviet Union were standing with the Georgian President? Think about that and then tell me why they would do such a thing. Look at the facts.

Were our borders threatened when the Soviet Union was ready to put missiles in Cuba?

Show me which former Soviet Union countries are standing with the Georgian president. and we'll talk about it.

What threat was Georgia presenting to Russia?

If you would pay attention to the news, you wouldn't have to ask which presidents with the Georgian President. Maybe if you look for that, you'll see other things that tell you what the hell happened over there. I saw it in several places.
 

fff

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
fff said:
Sandhusker said:
You said Russia had to protect it's borders. Russia's borders were never threatened. You protect your borders by CROSSING that border and attack your neighbor? You think a little country like Georgia is going to attack Russia? This whole deal was a setup by the Russians, they had an army sitting at the border of a country that was no threat to them at all (explain that, please), caused a stir in GEORGIAN TERRITORY, and then used the expected intervention by the Georgian government as an excuse to invade.

Have you noticed that many leaders of countries there were part of the former Soviet Union were standing with the Georgian President? Think about that and then tell me why they would do such a thing. Look at the facts.

Were our borders threatened when the Soviet Union was ready to put missiles in Cuba?

Show me which former Soviet Union countries are standing with the Georgian president. and we'll talk about it.

What threat was Georgia presenting to Russia?

If you would pay attention to the news, you wouldn't have to ask which presidents with the Georgian President. Maybe if you look for that, you'll see other things that tell you what the hell happened over there. I saw it in several places.

You're doing what you always do, make ignorant comments, then refuse to back them up. I'm not going to play until you answer the question:

Were our borders threatened when the Soviet Union was ready to install missiles in Cuba? And why is that different than the US training and arming Georgia's military?

Then show me which presidents of former USSR bloc countries are in Georgia. Why should I look them up? You made the claim.

I've researched and feel comfortable with what I know happened over there and it ticks me off. Geogre W. Bush armed and trained a military in Russia's back yard. They felt like they were strong enough and had US backing to go take back a region that they feel is part of their country. They got their butts kicked and now they want to blame the Russians. McCain is much more comfortable with a cold war (his war) than he is with what's going on in the world today, so he's jumped on it like a duck on a june bug. And that damned "liberal" press is quoting him like he's the President of the US.....after bashing Obama for "acting" presidential on his European tour recently. But, hey, McCain's a Republican and he's white. So it's obviously not the same thing. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
You're the one making ignorant comments, Frankie. You claim Russia had to defend it's borders, when it's borders were never threatened. Comparing this to the Cuban missile crisis is beyond rediculous. You're comparing weapons aimed at us that could of taken out many of our cities to what? To what, Frankie? What possible military threat does Georgia pose to Russia? The whole Georgian Air Force has 7 fighters!

Georgia was only policing their own territory. Why do you think they felt the need to send in troops, Frankie? Because there was just too much peace going on courtesy of the Russians? Why do you think so many Russians came across the border so soon?

You should find out which presidents were in Georgia so that you can carry on an informed conversation on the topic and make judgements based on what has actually happened. However, if you choose to remain ignorant of the facts, nobody here is going to be surprised. You're a liberal, we know you can't recognize facts much less deal with them.

George Bush didn't arm or train anybody. That country is our friend and ally. They were that way before Bush was President. When we asked for help, they gave it. It really pisses me off for your libs to badmouth our friends and somehow get a perverse pleasure out of seeing them get crushed by invaders. This is some serious stuff with clear bad guys and good guys and you libs are cheering the bad guys because the good guys may of shaken George Bush's hand. Pathetic.
 

VanC

Well-known member
fff said:
I'm not going to play until you answer the question:

Can I give it a shot?. Never mind, I'm going to anyway.

fff said:
Were our borders threatened when the Soviet Union was ready to install missiles in Cuba?

Any reasonable person would say yes. At the time, the Soviets were way behind the US in the arms race. They had no land based missiles that could reach the US, they had no long range bombers that could reach the US, and they had no submarines that carried nuclear weapons. We had all three. The Soviets sought to correct this imbalance by putting short and medium range missiles as close to US soil as possible, in this case, Cuba. You don't think the capability to reach two thirds of the continental US with nuclear warheads, almost overnight, constituted a threat? Just what do you consider a threat, anyway?

fff said:
And why is that different than the US training and arming Georgia's military?

Georgia's military consists of about 20,000 men, mostly equipped with old, outdated equipment left over from the Soviet Union. The US did train 3 battallions and 1 motorized company in NATO tactics, mainly to bring them up to speed before a possible acceptance into NATO. Three battallions and one company equals approximately 3000-3500 men. The US also sold a whopping six attack helicopters to Georgia. Most of their other upgrades in military equipment have come from their allies from the former Soviet bloc, or from other European countries. Either way, any reasonable person can see that the Georgians posed no military threat to Russia. Heck, you might as well put the Illinois National Guard on China's border and call it a threat. :lol: This whole thing was political from the get go, not because the Russians considered Georgia a threat.

fff said:
Then show me which presidents of former USSR bloc countries are in Georgia.

Georgia's allies in show of supportFrom correspondents in Gandja
August 13, 2008 04:24am
Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: + -
Send this article: Print Email
THE leaders of five ex-communist states, all staunch allies of Georgia, headed there today in what Poland's president called a show of support for the country after Russia's assault.

"Our visit is a sign of the solidarity of our five countries with the Georgian nation, which has been a victim of aggression," President Lech Kaczynski said.

"Once again, Russia has shown its true face," he said.

Mr Kaczynski and his opposite numbers from Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, and Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, as well as Latvia's Prime Minister Ivars Godmanis, left Warsaw on the same aircraft early Monday afternoon local time.

The Polish government plane then collected President Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine.

Rather than flying to Georgia it landed in neighbouring Azerbaijan - "for security reasons", the crew said - and the leaders were to travel some 200km by road to Tbilisi.

Announcing the high-level visit yesterday, Mr Kaczynski's office said the goal was to push a plan to end the crisis in Georgia, proposed by the five countries on Monday.

On board the aircraft, Mr Kaczynski said that the leaders hoped to meet in Tbilisi with French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Mr Sarkozy, who currently holds the European Union presidency, has steered Western diplomatic efforts to halt the Russian military campaign against Georgia, sparked last week when Georgian forces attacked rebels.

The French leader met today with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, as the Kremlin ordered an end to its massive military operation in the neighbouring ex-Soviet state.

"We are turning out to support Georgia, to show that no state has the right to violate the territorial integrity of another one. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia," Mr Kaczynski said, referring to two Russian-backed breakaway regions.

Mr Kaczynski hinted he was unhappy with Mr Sarkozy for allegedly sidelining the ex-communist states' peace plan even though four of them are EU members.

"We can see that the EU is an aristocratic republic. That's something that I've said many times. It can't go on like this," he said.

Earlier, when asked about Mr Medvedev's decision to end the offensive, Mr Kaczynski had said: "The halt in operations is of course good news. It remains to be seen whether operations will resume".

Poland, which broke free from Moscow in 1989, and the Baltic states, which like Georgia and Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union until it collapsed in 1991, are all firm supporters of Tbilisi.

They are all solidly anchored in the West - Poland joined NATO in 1999 and the EU in 2004, while the Baltic states became members of both in 2004, and back Georgia and Ukraine's efforts to do likewise.

They have been pressing other Western nations to get tough with Russia over Georgia.

On Sunday, Mr Kaczynski and the Baltic presidents had issued a joint statement calling on the EU and NATO to oppose Russia's "imperialist" policy towards Georgia.

That sparked a rebuke yesterday from Russia's ambassador to Latvia, Alexander Veshnyakov, who warned the four countries they would pay for their criticism of the Kremlin.

Mr Adamkus today hammered home the message that the West must not let Russia off the hook.

"We can't allow a second Munich, when the international community climbed down to Hitler. That led to World War II, to a huge tragedy and millions of victims," he told Lithuanian public radio.

He was referring to the 1938 Munich conference, when Western nations tried to ward off war by accepting Adolf Hitler's demands that Nazi Germany be awarded Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland region, on the grounds that its population were mostly German-speakers.

Moscow has argued that its assault on Georgia was in part meant to protect Russian citizens there.


fff said:
I've researched and feel comfortable with what I know happened over there

Well, it's good to know that a few minutes of research can bring someone up to speed on world events, including having information that only world leaders have access to. Heck, why waste time on governments, anyway? Any time something like this happens we'll all just rush to our computers, do a little research, and come up with the answers. :lol:

fff said:
and it ticks me off.

Seems to be happening a lot, lately, and it's got me worried. Do you ever see anything good in people, or the world in general? Take it easy.

fff said:
Geogre W. Bush armed and trained a military in Russia's back yard.

That's right, it's Bush's fault, and so is everything else. :roll: Talk about a one trick pony!

fff said:
They felt like they were strong enough and had US backing to go take back a region that they feel is part of their country. They got their butts kicked and now they want to blame the Russians.

None of us know what those people were thinking, and you know it. Let me ask you this: If Hillary Clinton were president, and she had done the exact same thing Bush did regarding Georgia and NATO, would you feel the same way? Or is this just a bunch of partisan crap?

fff said:
McCain is much more comfortable with a cold war (his war) than he is with what's going on in the world today, so he's jumped on it like a duck on a june bug.

McCain was fighting the Cold War when "The Annointed One" was still in diapers, and later, when "The Annointed One" was snorting coke and learning to roll big 'ol Bob Marley joints, McCain was still fighting it. Besides, isn't what's going on in Georgia happening right now, or are we in sort of time warp here?


fff said:
And that damned "liberal" press is quoting him like he's the President of the US..

Could it be that it's because McCain is light years ahead of "The Annointed One" in foreign policy experience? Of course not. :roll: Could it be that some of the press is finally seeing that "The Annointed One" is an empty suit and has nothing constructive to add? Of course not. :roll: Or could it be that, after taking some heat over doing everything in their power to get "The Annointed One" elected, and seeing their ratings plummet because of it, some of the press are trying to appear "fair"? That's my guess.

fff said:
...after bashing Obama for "acting" presidential on his European tour recently.

You're delusional. Ninety percent of the press were fawning over "The Annointed One" in Europe like a bunch of 13 year old girls at a Backstreet Boys concert. :lol:

fff said:
But, hey, McCain's a Republican and he's white. So it's obviously not the same thing. :roll:

That's right!! Any time someone criticizes "The Annointed One" or pays the slightest bit of attention to McCain it's because of racism. :roll: I'm sorry I called you a one trick pony earlier. I should have said TWO trick pony! :p
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Well put, Van. Although, I'm not going to give you too much credit - shooting down liberal positions generally isn't exactly the toughest thing to do! Like I said earlier, you can generally shoot them out of the saddle in three exchanges or less.

It's something the "typical white person" can do quite easily. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Texan

Well-known member
fff said:
But, hey, McCain's a Republican and he's white. So it's obviously not the same thing. :roll:
You libs sure do have a problem with white guys all of the sudden. Why does McCain's race bother you so bad? Why make an issue out of his race? :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
:agree:

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Unforunatly fff,ff,frankie, disagreeable can't see the forest for the trees with all her research :roll: :roll: all 10 seconds of it, research YEA right, If she even read half of what she cuts and pastes and then reread what she posts she would be so confused she would think Oldtimer has a grip on reality :D
 

VanC

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Well put, Van. Although, I'm not going to give you too much credit - shooting down liberal positions generally isn't exactly the toughest thing to do! Like I said earlier, you can generally shoot them out of the saddle in three exchanges or less.

It's something the "typical white person" can do quite easily. :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, not very challenging, but it's a good way to kill time. :lol:
 
Top