PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Comrade Chris Matthew's Hero!

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Comrade Chris Matthew's Hero! (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=267962)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2375096)

The issue was the factual error as was stated “Eisenhower started us on the road in Nam” that has been disputed and refuted!

Perhaps in your universe of un-ending Hatfield v. McCoy feuding. What Truman did in '45 was part of the wind up of WW2. Maj. Archimedes Patti, the first US serviceman sent to Indochina for the purpose of mopping up the Japanese and securing the release of America POWs, reported that Ho was a very effective and worthy ally who admired our founding fathers and only allied with the USSR out of desperation.

Unfortunately for Ho and crew, the French were more prominent allies of ours and would not hear of Vietnamese independence. England also was not interested in losing Burma and feared any Vietnamese independence would be the beginning of the dominoes falling.

Eisenhower's activity was much more in the direction of supporting continued French/Western dominance of Indochina.

But I'm not interested in calling Vietnam a Republican war. It was an American war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim B. (Post 2375121)

Without question that is the most utterly divisive, partisan, ignorant and untrue statement of the day seen on this forum.

Yeppers. But then, it came from the master.

And they wonder why they get accused of not being rational. I find it impossible to engage in rational debate when it gets poisoned like that, perhaps if they refrained these threads would not degenerate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2375802)

You just don't get Billy Bob Reasoning Rule #1: start with a conclusion first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375624)

I can not recall one time in my entire life where I called Republican traitors.

Except when you do!

Post # 33

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining (Post 637668)

What those liberals will do! Like expose a CIA agent, for example. Oops, sorry, my mistake, thats some right wing traitor who'd sell his country down the river. He still works for Bush.

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/showthread.php?t=94924

Post #1 of the thread you started!

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining (Post 742594)

Bush wants to "legitimize" illegals that are here. Wouldn't the proper way to legimatize them be to annex Mexico? We are creating majorities in California, Arizona and Texas that have no rights here and very little in there own country. Aren't we selling out our own principles? How can we bring democracy to Iraqis, yet deny it to millions who live here among us? Why is "legitimizing" these people only something we want to do in only an economic sense?

My position is this - it should be a Class A Felony for employers to hire these people. To hell with trying to arrest the illegals - they are committing no crime in doing what any man would do to feed a hungry family. Arresting these people is no different than arresting a starving man for stealing a loaf of bread. The real criminals are the scheming greedy capitalist traitors who would sell out their own country by turning it over to an invasion by an army that has invaded us without guns. Like most filthy scumbag traitors they do it so they can make a buck. They belong in prison. There is no greater indictment of why turning this country over to corporations is the thing we are all going to regret, because these crooks that hire aliens seek nothing less than making treason legal. They should be locked up. If this was the law, then the illegals would be forced to stay in Mexico to solve their own problems.

We tax these people, in fact in the case of Social Security taxes we confiscate their income, thereby denying the most basic, most founding principle of this country - no taxation without representation. Bush chooses to side with the corporate criminals who sell out the jobs of Americans so we can continue to be craven hypocrites and screw these people, deny them the vote and treat them as a slave class, while our leaders allow us to be invaded in an invasion where no battles are fought, but that in the end gives us the same result as if the Japanese had successfully invaded America. To me, Bush violates his oath to perserve and protect the United States by supporting this treason.

As far as them being here to do the jobs nobody wants - we said that in Texas years ago and got to find out the hard way that there are plenty of skilled tradesmen and professional people in Mexico. These people have decimated what was once a backbone of the middle class here - high paying construction and maintenance jobs like carpenters, electicians and plumbers are gone now. Your job could be next. Why do none dare to call it treason?

We should make a choice - either make them part of our democracy where they have the same rights as everyone else, or keep them out in the way guaranteed to accomplish it - by meteing out heavy penalities for hiring them. To do anything else makes us all guilty of selling out our most basic principles.

Post # 18

Quote:

Originally Posted by KirkVining (Post 742778)

Actually, this thread is a test of how far our good behavior can go. Let's see, I've used "traitor", "treason", did I use "kook" yet? I know I've refrained from "Hitler".

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=742778

Post #1

Refering to Texas voters:

I will. The word "traitors" comes to mind.

Post #32

What it is above all else is illegal and treasonous, all supported by well-settled law, and those that advocate it are, well, traitors - they wish to subvert the Establishment Clause of the US, the very essence of treason.

Post #34

^ I have thoroughly demolished that statement, with your own Constitution. You are simply wrong. Do you deny that? The thing that is "quite American" is to defend the Constitution, not traitors who claim it doesn't say what it says in black and white.

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/showthread.php?t=250476

Holy crap, can you spell "obsessive" boys and girls?

Who the hell is "kirk vining"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2375838)

Except when you do!

Post # 33

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/showthread.php?t=94924

Post #1 of the thread you started!

Post # 18

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=742778

Post #1

Refering to Texas voters:

I will. The word "traitors" comes to mind.

Post #32

What it is above all else is illegal and treasonous, all supported by well-settled law, and those that advocate it are, well, traitors - they wish to subvert the Establishment Clause of the US, the very essence of treason.

Post #34

^ I have thoroughly demolished that statement, with your own Constitution. You are simply wrong. Do you deny that? The thing that is "quite American" is to defend the Constitution, not traitors who claim it doesn't say what it says in black and white.

http://www.peachparts.com//shopforum/showthread.php?t=250476

Now:

Show one actual example where where he used the word treason, with specific regard to REPUBLICANS, the political party.

he doesn't understand the difference

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375861)

he doesn't understand the difference

He has something to look forward to:

PALIN/PREJEAN 2012

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012 (Post 2375802)

Is it really so difficult to admit it when you haven't a clue as to what you're talking about?

"Eisenhower's activity was much more in the direction of supporting continued French/Western dominance of Indochina."

As opposed to what has already been posted:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Billybob (Post 2374238)

In fact it was Truman who started us on the road when in "September 1950 - Truman sends the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina to Vietnam to assist the French. The President claimed they were not sent as combat troops, but to supervise the use of $10 million worth of US military equipment to support the French in their effort to fight the Viet Minh forces."

So even though it has been on numerous occasions demonstrated you haven’t known what the facts are, you expect others to value your analytical conclusion that Eisenhower’s activity was “much more in the direction of supporting French/Western dominance of Indochina” when Truman in 1950 threw the resources of the US behind the French.

With regard to the positions of the geopolitical players of the day you can learn much if you actually read Patti’s book, Why Viet Nam?: Prelude to America's Albatross and it’s contemporaneously generated documentation of Lt. Col A. Peter Dewey, the first post WWII US casualty in Indochina. The position of the US was ambivalent and had been to do nothing to support or contradict British and French colonialism.

With regard to Uncle Ho’s “only allied with the USSR out of desperation” it must be noted that it is documented that Ho had been a communist since before WWI as a member of Comintern, and more than 25 years later still declared himself a communist in 1945. So turning to the USSR was less an act of desperation than the solicitation of support from a like-minded wealthier fellow traveler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JollyRoger (Post 2375859)

Who the hell is "kirk vining"?

He had some posts here : Funny to read back and see what was happening 5 plus years ago. http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=100453&highlight=tour+duty This whole attack on anyone's combat service, never mind Kerry's, makes me want to vomit. You guys who engage in this are doing the same thing as the people who spit on these guys when they came home. This whole road you guys are trying to go down where you are trying to denigrate a man's combat service is the most despicable thing I have ever seen in politics. I have never seen it before until Bush started this type of political attack with McCain in 2000, and it is a new low for gutter politics. No matter what you think of his politics, the guy put his life on the line for you, you ungrateful twit. The only response of people on this side is going to be to attack Bush's dismal service record, something I actually don't enjoy doing, but people pushing this crap make necessary. It would be better for all of us if we just dropped it, but its obvious that Drudge and these "swift boat veterens" have a financially-backed smear campaign in progress, so I don't see it happening.

My one attempt to support a Republican, McCain early in 2000, left me in total and utter disgust with the Bush crowd when the Karl Rove's far right operatives went after him, smearing his service, as a Prisoner of War for gods sake, with "Manchurian Candidate" and "unbalanced because he was tortured" crap like this. It worked there, but in this case its going to cause the repubs more backlash than it is worth.

All this happened in a world you can't live in, when Republicans and Democrats were united in the fight against totalitarianism.

Before this gets completely irrational....
Perhaps the original posting about "traitor" should have been more clear. I think ( hope) the poster meant " Democrat Party LEADERS. I do not believe he meant to insult all the fine democrats and liberals who have served, and who currently serve this country. While I would not go so far as to call even some of the leadership "traitors", I can understand why some might want to make that accusation.
Again, communicatiuon is far more difficult than it would at first appear. The absence of facial expressions, etc, make web comments often seem more malevolent than they were intended.
My hat is off, and I give a hearty "Thank You" to all patriots whether democrat, republican, liberal, Conservative, Progressive, Independent, Muslem, Jewish, Christian, Agnostic, or Atheist.
As you were.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by daveuz (Post 2375871)

He had some posts here : Funny to read back and see what was happening 5 plus years ago. http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=100453&highlight=tour+duty

Wow. Seems he could see the future:

Quote:

This is just more excuse making. Given the same set of information Bush had to work with, it is doubtful anyone but a PNAC fanatic like our president and his cronies would have executed a unilateral invasion and occupation of Iraq. If Mr. Kerry had been in charge, it would have been done thru the UN - something I would have been happy with even if Bush had done it. But it is the fascist, Hitler-like unilateral invasion of an essentially weak, disarmed nation that exposes Bush and his neo-con rat pack for what they are -corporatists who did it for commercial reasons, not the public saftey. If any one of you can give me one reason how the public safety has been improved by this fiasco, I would be stunned. Meanwhile, I can give you plenty how it has made us less safe.