Well, i have to really wonder about the quality of an Ivy League education seeing how well Barack Hussein Obama has done with some of those freshman level course facts.
The most recent was the Freshman Senator from Illinois saying, "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states, I think, one left to go... Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to." OK, let's do the math here...57 apparently continental states plus 1, being Alaska AND Hawaii equals 50?!?!?! We still have fifty states in the United States of America, right? I haven't missed anything, have i?
I do realize that those on the left are going to sit back and say, "Oh, poor Obama; he's just so tired from all of the travel and politicing that he just misspoke from being tired." Yeah, OK...but let's face the facts, even though i know that is something liberals usually try to avoid; but if it was President George W. Bush saying this you will not hear the end of it from the Moron Media or the hatefilled liberal bloggers. And lets not forget Sen. John McCain who would have been crucified as being "senile" or for having a "senior moment." There of course is a word for this...hypocrisy.
A few days before though, as Barack Hussein Obama continues to find new ways to defend his doctrine of appeasment when he said, "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." OK...that must have been some of the classes i missed during studies for my BA in history. I'm assuming that the Roosevelt he speaks of is FDR, the father of big government, who as i recall NEVER sat down in order to make peace with Hitler. And then Kennedy...yeah, don't recall him having any heart to hearts with Castro either. And of course Truman...mmm, yeah, didn't he get us into the Korean War? And i'm still kind of stuck on when he met for a round of negotiations with Kim Il-Sung leading up to 1950.
I guess it might be some of that new learning found in our public school systems that also allows for students to graduate without ever learning how to read.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
But all those presidents sat down to talk to the Soviets, our Mack Daddy long-term Nemesis of the twentieth century.
paper argument. Roosevelt did meet with Soviets, but at the time they were also an ally in the fight against the Nazis and Fascists...Hitler on the other hand was more like the hairy little thug ruling Iran. And Kennedy's meeting with Khrushcheve...yeah, that helped out a lot. And once again, did Truman's meetings with Stalin was as an ally at the end of WWII. The only person, other than Barack Hussein Obama that believes appeasing the enemy will achieve anything of purpose is Jimmy Carter.
"Paper argument?" This is, surely, one of the most ridiculous things you've posted in a long line of ridiculous postings.
All presidents, from FDR on--and that includes Saint Ronald--carried on diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union through good times and bad, and, for most of that time, they were not allies.
If, indeed, you have a bachelor's in history, have the respect for the profession not to twist the facts around to suit your political point of the moment.
and in typical liberal fashion when you can't prove yourself to be correct you revert to personal attacks. Therefore you and your truly pathetic paper arguments...which is what they are, will no longer be posted on this particular thread. You haven't even got the courage to use anything other than a typekey profile to troll around these blogs...are you that unsure about your political foundation? If i were a liberal i probably would be too.
And if you look at the HISTORICAL FACTS you will see that i am right and not just twisting the facts which is the basis for the vast majority of liberal point of views. No sitting American president has ever tried to negotiate with a madman like you find leading Iran today in hopes of using diplomacy...Neville Chamberlin trying appease Hitler prior to WWII, yes, but once again no sitting American President has ever done this.
You haven't even got the courage to use anything other than a typekey profile to troll around these blogs
First of all, I don't know what you mean. Everyone on the Internet uses a handle. CCG's name is CCG? Your name is Revbeaux, or even boBByD? What more do you want to know about my identity? And why? This is a side issue designed to draw attention away from the problems of your post.
Second,every sitting American president from the time we ended our invasion of Russia c. 1919 carried on diplomatic relations with the Soviets. And you're saying that Ahmedinejad is worse than Stalin? In what way?
Nixon, another sitting president, not only carried on diplomatic relations with China--another major Communist Nemesis of the twentieth century--but actually went to the country.
Aside from all the stuff we know about, there are always backchannel negotiations that we only learn about years after the fact.
So: which HISTORICAL FACTS am I missing?
So Doc, do you need to see my birth certificate to see that my name IS Bobby? or that my middle name and my last name both begin with "D"? I guess so since i apparently lie about my studies in history and having a degree there also in the name of political spin. I guess that would also mean my wife and children are nothing more than a myth, right?
Is Stalin worst than the Iranian hairy little thug? Quite possibly since this is a man who hates our way of life, who we are, our democracy, EVERYTHING...and believes our allies have no right to exist. Stalin was a murderer and a liar, and so far by only the grace of God Ahmedinejad has only proven himself to be a liar. Given the opportunity though, who would be more likely to strike our country? Stalin or Ahmedinejad? I would suggest the latter.
Doc, you are the one hiding your identity while trolling around seeking to make paper arguments based on your liberal bias and lies that are spun out of that bias. You are the one who chose to insult my educational background; when in fact we have no idea if you even have any type of creditionals to support your apparent lack of knowledge due to the fact that you, once again, choose to hide your identity. And you are the one who doubts my identity which is listed on my page as you, yes...hide who you are. Are you that embarrased about your beliefs?
Also: you accused me of lying. What, exactly, was my lie?
Is this a confession? A clear conscience makes a world of difference, and repenting from liberalism can be a start.
Post a Comment