revelette
 
  2  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:07 pm
@Lash,
It could simply be that minorities are a ever growing population and there are more minority democrats than there are republicans. I think the Voter ID laws and other tactics had a backlash effect with minority votes as they seemed to have voted in even bigger numbers than they did in 2008. Some stood in line for hours to vote.

Election Data Dive

How the GOP’s War on Voting Backfired
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:24 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
It could simply be that minorities are a ever growing population and there are more minority democrats than there are republicans.

more than a few on the left claim to believe that non whites will be a continual gravy train for their cause. they are delusional. a huge chunk of those non whites are mexicans, a people who are conservative by nature. the GOP can and will at some point tap into that, and they dont need to adopt the dems open door policy on immigration to do it.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
a huge chunk of those non whites are mexicans, a people who are conservative by nature.


this part is true (at least based on the interviews I've been hearing)

the Republicans haven't admitted that they lost track of a demographic that Bush Sr. had started to work with. The next generations of Republicans were offensive toward what should have been a natural voting block for them.
0 Replies
 
revelette
 
  3  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the GOP can and will at some point tap into that


Well, no one is holding them back from doing it except themselves.

Quote:
and they dont need to adopt the dems open door policy on immigration to do it.


Suddenly we are seeing more and more newly converted republicans supporting immigration reform in the form of giving a pathway to citizenship.

Quote:
•House Speaker John Boehner (OH): Saying the issue has been around for far too long, Boehner said in an ABC interview that “I’m confident that the president, myself, others can find the common ground to take care of this issue once and for all.”

•Former Gov. Haley Barbour (MS): Haley argued on the “Today” show that Republicans need to be in favor of good policy. “And good policy on immigration in the United States is, we are in a global battle for capital and labor, and we need to have what is good economic policy for America on immigration because we do need labor,” he said. “We not only need Ph.Ds in science and technology, we need skilled workers and we need unskilled workers. And we need to have an immigration policy that is good economic policy, and then — and then the politics will take care of itself.”

•Radio host Sean Hannity: On his radio show Thursday, Hannity told his listeners that he has “evolved” on immigration policy and now supports a “pathway to citizenship.” The problem can’t go on, he added. “It’s simple to me to fix it,” Hannity said. “I think you control the border first. You create a pathway for those people that are here — you don’t say you’ve got to go home. And that is a position that I’ve evolved on. Because, you know what, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of people here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home, but if people are here, law-abiding, participating for years, their kids are born here, you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done.”

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS), who is running for the chairmanship of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told Politico that Republicans will have to change how they reach out to Latino voters. “In some fashion, the way we have dealt with immigration gives us a black eye. And we need to figure out how to talk about issues and pursue policies that matter to Latino, Hispanic voters,” he said. And that’s clear from the exit poll results. Among Latino voters, immigration was the second most important issue behind jobs. Sixty percent of Latinos in the U.S. know someone who is an undocumented immigrant, and 90 percent are within two generations of immigrating to the U.S. After Romney spent most of his campaign embracing harmful immigration policies, most Latino voters reported that they thought Romney was “hostile toward Latinos,” while 66 percent said they believe Obama “truly cares about Latinos.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Senate Immigration, Refugees and Border Security Subcommittee, described it as a “breakthrough” that Boehner is willing to work on immigration reform, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) has vowed to pass an immigration law. But other GOP congressional members have been resistant to reform in the past — House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) previously has promised to not hold a hearing on the DREAM Act — so it has yet to be seen if more Republicans will come around on immigration reform as well.


source


cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:50 pm
@revelette,
A good way to turn new voters into democrats is to keep harping on social issues like gay marriage, 47% are takers, women's bodies, and immigration - over the national debt, jobs, and how to solve those basic issues.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:53 pm
@revelette,
Quote:
Well, no one is holding them back from doing it except themselves.

they thought that they could wait to care because so few minorities can/do vote. maybe they miscalculated, but they are not stupid, at some point the gop will move to capture this market, and it will not be as difficult as most liberals hope and expect.

Quote:
Suddenly we are seeing more and more newly converted republicans supporting immigration reform in the form of giving a pathway to citizenship.

so what? does this surprise you?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:55 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

A good way to turn new voters into democrats is to keep harping on social issues like gay marriage, 47% are takers, women's bodies, and immigration - over the national debt, jobs, and how to solve those basic issues.

mexicans, to include women, tend to not want to support gay rights or liberal versions of womens rights. The GOP does not need to change much to do well with this crowd.

edit: i noticed several reports that the mexicans held their noses as they voted for Obama this time, there is no love fest with the Dems for them.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 12:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Quote:
Suddenly we are seeing more and more newly converted republicans supporting immigration reform in the form of giving a pathway to citizenship.

You; so what? does this surprise you?


Why shouldn't it? From the examiner.
Quote:
Immigration war among Republicans

GOVERNMENTNOVEMBER 10, 2012BY: JAMES GEORGE
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 01:33 pm
@JTT,
JTT, I commented:

Quote:
C'mon, JTT. Even you should be able to see this as absurd hyperbole.


You responded with:

Quote:

Quote:
The Reagan Bloodbath

As brutal as the Guatemalan security forces were in the 1960s and 1970s, the worst was yet to come. In the 1980s, the Guatemalan army escalated its slaughter of political dissidents and their suspected supporters to unprecedented levels.

Ronald Reagan's election in November 1980 set off celebrations in the well-to-do communities of Central America. After four years of Jimmy Carter's human rights nagging, the region's hard-liners were thrilled that they had someone in the White House who understood their problems.

The oligarchs and the generals had good reason for optimism. For years, Reagan had been a staunch defender of right-wing regimes that engaged in bloody counterinsurgency against leftist enemies.

In the late 1970s, when Carter's human rights coordinator, Patricia Derian, criticized the Argentine military for its "dirty war" -- tens of thousands of "disappearances," tortures and murders -- then-political commentator Reagan joshed that she should "walk a mile in the moccasins" of the Argentine generals before criticizing them. [For details, see Martin Edwin Andersen's Dossier Secreto.]

After his election in 1980, Reagan pushed to overturn an arms embargo imposed on Guatemala by Carter. Yet as Reagan was moving to loosen up the military aid ban, the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies were confirming new Guatemalan government massacres.

In April 1981, a secret CIA cable described a massacre at Cocob, near Nebaj in the Ixil Indian territory. On April 17, 1981, government troops attacked the area believed to support leftist guerrillas, the cable said. According to a CIA source, "the social population appeared to fully support the guerrillas" and "the soldiers were forced to fire at anything that moved." The CIA cable added that "the Guatemalan authorities admitted that 'many civilians' were killed in Cocob, many of whom undoubtedly were non-combatants."

Despite the CIA account and other similar reports, Reagan permitted Guatemala's army to buy $3.2 million in military trucks and jeeps in June 1981. To permit the sale, Reagan removed the vehicles from a list of military equipment that was covered by the human rights embargo.



No Regrets

Apparently confident of Reagan's sympathies, the Guatemalan government continued its political repression without apology.

According to a State Department cable on Oct. 5, 1981, Guatemalan leaders met with Reagan's roving ambassador, retired Gen. Vernon Walters, and left no doubt about their plans. Guatemala's military leader, Gen. Fernando Romeo Lucas Garcia, "made clear that his government will continue as before -- that the repression will continue."

Human rights groups saw the same picture. The Inter-American Human Rights Commission released a report on Oct. 15, 1981, blaming the Guatemalan government for "thousands of illegal executions." [Washington Post, Oct. 16, 1981]

But the Reagan administration was set on whitewashing the ugly scene. A State Department "white paper," released in December 1981, blamed the violence on leftist "extremist groups" and their "terrorist methods," inspired and supported by Cuba's Fidel Castro. Yet, even as these rationalizations were pitched to the American people, U.S. intelligence agencies in Guatemala continued to learn of government-sponsored massacres.

One CIA report in February 1982 described an army sweep through the so-called Ixil Triangle in central El Quiche province. "The commanding officers of the units involved have been instructed to destroy all towns and villages which are cooperating with the Guerrilla Army of the Poor [known as the EGP] and eliminate all sources of resistance," the report stated. "Since the operation began, several villages have been burned to the ground, and a large number of guerrillas and collaborators have been killed."

The CIA report explained the army's modus operandi: "When an army patrol meets resistance and takes fire from a town or village, it is assumed that the entire town is hostile and it is subsequently destroyed." When the army encountered an empty village, it was "assumed to have been supporting the EGP, and it is destroyed. There are hundreds, possibly thousands of refugees in the hills with no homes to return to. The well-documented belief by the army that the entire Ixil Indian population is pro-EGP has created a situation in which the army can be expected to give no quarter to combatants and non-combatants alike."

Rios Montt

In March 1982, Gen. Efrain Rios Montt seized power in a coup d'etat. An avowed fundamentalist Christian, he immediately impressed official Washington, where Reagan hailed Rios Montt as "a man of great personal integrity."

By July 1982, however, Rios Montt had begun a new scorched-earth campaign called his "rifles and beans" policy. The slogan meant that pacified Indians would get "beans," while all others could expect to be the target of army "rifles." In October, he secretly gave carte blanche to the feared "Archivos" intelligence unit to expand "death squad" operations.

The U.S. embassy was soon hearing more accounts of the army conducting Indian massacres. On Oct, 21, 1982, one cable described how three embassy officers tried to check out some of these reports but ran into bad weather and canceled the inspection. Still, the cable put a positive spin on the situation. Though unable to check out the massacre reports, the embassy officials did "reach the conclusion that the army is completely up front about allowing us to check alleged massacre sites and to speak with whomever we wish."

The next day, the embassy fired off an analysis that the Guatemalan government was the victim of a communist-inspired "disinformation campaign," a claim embraced by Reagan when he declared that the Guatemalan government was getting a "bum rap" on human rights after he met with Rios Montt in December 1982.

On Jan. 7, 1983, Reagan lifted the ban on military aid to Guatemala and authorized the sale of $6 million in military hardware. Approval covered spare parts for UH-1H helicopters and A-37 aircraft used in counterinsurgency operations. State Department spokesman John Hughes said political violence in the cities had "declined dramatically" and that rural conditions had improved too.

In February 1983, however, a secret CIA cable noted a rise in "suspect right-wing violence" with kidnappings of students and teachers. Bodies of victims were appearing in ditches and gullies. CIA sources traced these political murders to Rios Montt's order to the "Archivos" in October to "apprehend, hold, interrogate and dispose of suspected guerrillas as they saw fit."



Sugarcoating

Despite these grisly facts on the ground, the annual State Department human rights survey sugarcoated the facts for the American public and praised the supposedly improved human rights situation in Guatemala. "The overall conduct of the armed forces had improved by late in the year" 1982, the report stated.

A different picture -- far closer to the secret information held by the U.S. government -- was coming from independent human rights investigators. On March 17, 1983, Americas Watch representatives condemned the Guatemalan army for human rights atrocities against the Indian population.

New York attorney Stephen L. Kass said these findings included proof that the government carried out "virtually indiscriminate murder of men, women and children of any farm regarded by the army as possibly supportive of guerrilla insurgents."

Rural women suspected of guerrilla sympathies were raped before execution, Kass said. Children were "thrown into burning homes. They are thrown in the air and speared with bayonets. We heard many, many stories of children being picked up by the ankles and swung against poles so their heads are destroyed." [AP, March 17, 1983]

Publicly, however, senior Reagan officials continued to put on a happy face. On June 12, 1983, special envoy Richard B. Stone praised "positive changes" in Rios Montt's government. But Rios Montt's vengeful Christian fundamentalism was hurtling out of control, even by Guatemalan standards. In August 1983, Gen. Oscar Mejia Victores seized power in another coup.

Despite the power shift, Guatemalan security forces continued to kill those who were deemed subversives or terrorists. When three Guatemalans working for the U.S. Agency for International Development were slain in November 1983, U.S. Ambassador Frederic Chapin suspected that "Archivos" hit squads were sending a message to the United States to back off even the mild pressure for human rights improvements.

In late November 1983, in a brief show of displeasure, the administration postponed the sale of $2 million in helicopter spare parts. The next month, however, Reagan sent the spare parts. In 1984, Reagan succeeded, too, in pressuring Congress to approve $300,000 in military training for the Guatemalan army.

By mid-1984, Chapin, who had grown bitter about the army's stubborn brutality, was gone, replaced by a far-right political appointee named Alberto Piedra, who was all for increased military assistance to Guatemala.

In January 1985, Americas Watch issued a report observing that Reagan's State Department "is apparently more concerned with improving Guatemala's image than in improving its human rights."



Death Camp

Other examples of Guatemala's "death squad" strategy came to light later. For example, a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency cable in 1994 reported that the Guatemalan military had used an air base in Retalhuleu during the mid-1980s as a center for coordinating the counterinsurgency campaign in southwest Guatemala - and for torturing and burying prisoners.

At the base, pits were filled with water to hold captured suspects. "Reportedly there were cages over the pits and the water level was such that the individuals held within them were forced to hold on to the bars in order to keep their heads above water and avoid drowning," the DIA report stated.

The Guatemalan military used the Pacific Ocean as another dumping spot for political victims, according to the DIA report. Bodies of insurgents tortured to death and live prisoners marked for "disappearance" were loaded onto planes that flew out over the ocean where the soldiers would shove the victims into the water to drown, a tactic that had been a favorite disposal technique of the Argentine military in the 1970s.

The history of the Retalhuleu death camp was uncovered by accident in the early 1990s when a Guatemalan officer wanted to let soldiers cultivate their own vegetables on a corner of the base. But the officer was taken aside and told to drop the request "because the locations he had wanted to cultivate were burial sites that had been used by the D-2 [military intelligence] during the mid-eighties," the DIA report said.

Guatemala, of course, was not the only Central American country where Reagan and his administration supported brutal counterinsurgency operations and then sought to cover up the bloody facts. Deception of the American public - a strategy that the administration internally called "perception management" - was as much a part of the Central American story as the Bush administration's lies and distortions about weapons of mass destruction were to the lead-up to the war in Iraq.

Reagan's falsification of the historical record became a hallmark of the conflicts in El Salvador and Nicaragua as well as Guatemala. In one case, Reagan personally lashed out at a human rights investigator named Reed Brody, a New York lawyer who had collected affidavits from more than 100 witnesses to atrocities carried out by the U.S.-supported contras in Nicaragua.

Angered by the revelations about his contra "freedom-fighters," Reagan denounced Brody in a speech on April 15, 1985, calling him "one of dictator [Daniel] Ortega's supporters, a sympathizer who has openly embraced Sandinismo."

Privately, Reagan had a far more accurate understanding of the true nature of the contras. At one point in the contra war, Reagan turned to CIA official Duane Clarridge and demanded that the contras be used to destroy some Soviet-supplied helicopters that had arrived in Nicaragua. In his memoirs, Clarridge recalled that "President Reagan pulled me aside and asked, 'Dewey, can't you get those vandals of yours to do this job.'" [See Clarridge's A Spy for All Seasons.]



`Perception Management'

To manage U.S. perceptions of the wars in Central America, Reagan also authorized a systematic program of distorting information and intimidating American journalists. Called "public diplomacy," the project was run by a CIA propaganda veteran, Walter Raymond Jr., who was assigned to the National Security Council staff. The project's key operatives developed propaganda "themes," selected "hot buttons" to excite the American people, cultivated pliable journalists who would cooperate, and bullied reporters who wouldn't go along.

The best-known attacks were directed against New York Times correspondent Raymond Bonner for disclosing Salvadoran army massacres of civilians, including the slaughter of some 800 men, women and children in El Mozote in December 1981. But Bonner was not alone. Reagan's operatives pressured scores of reporters and their editors in an ultimately successful campaign to minimize information about these human rights crimes reaching the American people. [For details, see Robert Parry's Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' or Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq.]

The tamed reporters, in turn, gave the administration a far freer hand to pursue counterinsurgency operations in Central America. Despite the tens of thousands of civilian deaths and now-corroborated accounts of massacres and genocide, not a single senior military officer in Central America was given any significant punishment for the bloodshed, nor did any U.S. officials pay even a political price.

The U.S. officials who sponsored and encouraged these war crimes not only escaped legal judgment, but remain highly respected figures in Washington. Some have returned to senior government posts under George W. Bush. Meanwhile, Reagan has been honored as few recent presidents have with major public facilities named after him, including National Airport in Washington.

On Feb. 25, 1999, a Guatemalan truth commission issued a report on the staggering human rights crimes that Reagan and his administration had aided, abetted and concealed.

The Historical Clarification Commission, an independent human rights body, estimated that the Guatemalan conflict claimed the lives of some 200,000 people with the most savage bloodletting occurring in the 1980s. Based on a review of about 20 percent of the dead, the panel blamed the army for 93 percent of the killings and leftist guerrillas for three percent. Four percent were listed as unresolved.

The report documented that in the 1980s, the army committed 626 massacres against Mayan villages. "The massacres that eliminated entire Mayan villages are neither perfidious allegations nor figments of the imagination, but an authentic chapter in Guatemala's history," the commission concluded.

The army "completely exterminated Mayan communities, destroyed their livestock and crops," the report said. In the northern highlands, the report termed the slaughter a "genocide." Besides carrying out murder and "disappearances," the army routinely engaged in torture and rape. "The rape of women, during torture or before being murdered, was a common practice" by the military and paramilitary forces, the report found.

The report added that the "government of the United States, through various agencies including the CIA, provided direct and indirect support for some [of these] state operations." The report concluded that the U.S. government also gave money and training to a Guatemalan military that committed "acts of genocide" against the Mayans.

"Believing that the ends justified everything, the military and the state security forces blindly pursued the anticommunist struggle, without respect for any legal principles or the most elemental ethical and religious values, and in this way, completely lost any semblance of human morals," said the commission chairman, Christian Tomuschat, a German jurist.

"Within the framework of the counterinsurgency operations carried out between 1981 and 1983, in certain regions of the country agents of the Guatemalan state committed acts of genocide against groups of the Mayan people," Tomuschat said.

During a visit to Central America, on March 10, 1999, President Bill Clinton apologized for the past U.S. support of right-wing regimes in Guatemala. "For the United States, it is important that I state clearly that support for military forces and intelligence units which engaged in violence and widespread repression was wrong, and the United States must not repeat that mistake," Clinton said.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/HxGuatemala_DeathSquads.html



Does that mean you DO see it...or that you DO NOT?
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 01:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Does that mean you DO see it...or that you DO NOT?


Please elaborate because I do value your view points.
wmwcjr
 
  3  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 02:01 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Re: JTT (Post 5163943)

Quote:
Was it that large margin that led Reagan to become one of the most vicious of war criminals/terrorists to ever walk the planet, MM?




C'mon, JTT. Even you should be able to see this as absurd hyperbole.


I'm late in arriving on the scene, so to speak; but I must be on record as saying that JTT is right about this (not that I'm denying that JTT can be irritating and inconsiderate with regard to his obsession). I love our country, but there is no denying that for decades the foreign policy of this country has often supported brutal dictators. I'm not speaking as someone who's considerably to the left on the political spectrum -- as I'm a disillusioned, apathetic independent and centrist. It's just that I can't deny the truth about this shameful, deplorable record.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 02:40 pm
@wmwcjr,
I agree with your conclusion, but it only seems to encourage JTT in his repetitive ad nauseum posts in a million different words. I have him on Ignore.
reasoning logic
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 02:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I agree with your conclusion, but it only seems to encourage JTT in his repetitive ad nauseum posts in a million different words. I have him on Ignore.


I can only guess that you know that I think that what you share is intellectual information for the most part but I would hope that you do understand that we all get it wrong at times and even though JTT is very emotional about much of what he speaks of does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about much of what he speaks about.
JTT
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:01 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
but there is no denying that for decades the foreign policy of this country has often supported brutal dictators.


You know, Wm, if it was only decades. But the US's record is much worse than that.

John Stockwell: "We are carefully taught, we teach ourselves that we are a peace loving people but if you read our own history, just in a cursory way, you note that in fact we are a very warlike country.

Over 200 times we have put our forces into other countries to force them to our will. We've been in the business of being a country for about 200 years. We've spent fifty years at war, we've fought fifteen major wars, the average amount of time between one war and the next is ten years."




0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:04 pm
@reasoning logic,
I never intimated that he was wrong. Where did you learn English?
JTT
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:07 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:

THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

part II

CIA COVERT OPERATIONS IN CENTRAL AMERICA, CIA MANIPULATION OF THE PRESS, CIA EXPERIMENTATION ON THE U.S. PUBLIC

by John Stockwell

...

Systematically, the contras have been assassinating religious workers, teachers, health workers, elected officials, government administrators. You remember the assassination manual? that surfaced in 1984. It caused such a stir that President Reagan had to address it himself in the presidential debates with Walter Mondale. They use terror. This is a technique that they're using to traumatize the society so that it can't function.

I don't mean to abuse you with verbal violence, but you have to understand what your government and its agents are doing. They go into villages, they haul out families. With the children forced to watch they castrate the father, they peel the skin off his face, they put a grenade in his mouth and pull the pin. With the children forced to watch they gang-rape the mother, and slash her breasts off. And sometimes for variety, they make the parents watch while they do these things to the children.

This is nobody's propaganda. There have been over 100,000 American witnesses for peace who have gone down there and they have filmed and photographed and witnessed these atrocities immediately after they've happened, and documented 13,000 people killed this way, mostly women and children. These are the activities done by these contras. The contras are the people president Reagan calls `freedom fighters'. He says they're the moral equivalent of our founding fathers. And the whole world gasps at this confession of his family traditions.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Stockwell/StockwellCIA87_2.html


[emphasis added]
0 Replies
 
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I never intimated that he was wrong. Where did you learn English?


Please elaborate so that I can understand your point and also correct my English.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:48 pm
@reasoning logic,
I had asked Fresco a question (sorta), RL...and it pretty much required a "yes" or "no" answer.

He gave the long reply I quoted, so I was wondering if that long thing was a yes or a no.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 03:51 pm
@wmwcjr,
Quote:
I'm late in arriving on the scene, so to speak; but I must be on record as saying that JTT is right about this (not that I'm denying that JTT can be irritating and inconsiderate with regard to his obsession). I love our country, but there is no denying that for decades the foreign policy of this country has often supported brutal dictators. I'm not speaking as someone who's considerably to the left on the political spectrum -- as I'm a disillusioned, apathetic independent and centrist. It's just that I can't deny the truth about this shameful, deplorable record.


I agree Wm...like every major power that has ever existed on this planet, the United States has used its massive power in deplorable ways.

But that does not impact on what I found to be hyperbole in JTT's comment. I probably came close to despising Ronald Reagan...I thought of him as a lucky clown.

But to call him "one of the most vicious of war criminals/terrorists to ever walk the planet" is, in my opinion, hyperbole.
reasoning logic
 
  0  
Sun 11 Nov, 2012 04:16 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I had asked Fresco a question (sorta), RL...and it pretty much required a "yes" or "no" answer.

He gave the long reply I quoted, so I was wondering if that long thing was a yes or a no.


Would you kindly explain how fresco is relevant to this issue? By the way I think that Fresco is much more intellectual than me and probably you on many issues of sociology.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
So....Will Biden Be VP? - Question by blueveinedthrobber
My view on Obama - Discussion by McGentrix
Obama/ Love Him or Hate Him, We've Got Him - Discussion by Phoenix32890
Obama fumbles at Faith Forum - Discussion by slkshock7
Expert: Obama is not the antichrist - Discussion by joefromchicago
Obama's State of the Union - Discussion by maxdancona
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama 2012?
  3. » Page 38
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 06:40:38