Who Was President When You Turned 20?

The Iranian revolution was virtually guaranteed when an elected government was overthrown to install the bogus Shah long before Carter became president.

Monte Cargo wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

ossobuco wrote:

Welllllllll. Free lance but not all all alone on the deep blue sea.

he had jedgar and nixon to keep him company. reagan was doing his part over in hollywood to sniff out them reds what was "hatin' us for our freedoms".

ya know. like freedom of speech. freedom of political expression. all that stuff that seems to evaporate everytime one of these types of witch hunt becomes popular.

Oh, is that the liberal summarization of history, then?

don't know about the liberals, but it is what i come up with having read various material over nearly 50 years regarding the mccarthy bunch.

Sen. Joe McCarthy,
Tailgunner Joe, was a REAL American.
He knew how to stick it to the commies
that infested America.
We shud throw Kennedy off the half-dollar
and cast a genuine silver dollar
with Senator Joe McCarthy on it.

He was MY kinda guy !
Just judge by the RESULTS
of screams of commie pain.
David

do you deny that hoover and nixon were in cahoots with him ?

do you deny that reagan was involved in the creation of the black lists ?

do you deny that for all of the upheaval and gross abuse of the house unamerican activities committee, very little was produced in the way of verifiable and even less in the way convictions?

do you deny that over the last 5 years there has been, and is, a similarity in the bush administration's rhetoric, activities and paranoic secrecy?

Monte Cargo wrote:

At least one nation, previously on the terrorism list, Libya, surrendered their nuclear stockpiles to the United States, based solely on GWB's entry into Iraq.

That's an interesting assumption, but one you'll find difficult to prove. It's just as reasonable to assume that the UN sanctions, imposed on Libya four years after the bombing of Pan Am flight 103, and Libya's isolation in the international community were responsible for the renunciation. You could even argue that the compensation of US$ 3 billion paid to the families of the victims rather supports that assumption.

In general, I find it somewhat difficult when people argue that one event happened "solely based" on another event, merely because it happened at the same time.

This page recommended lifting American sanctions, but President Bush left them in place pending further steps, most notably Libya's decision to end its unconventional weapons programs. It is now clear that he was right to do so. The added American pressure worked just as intended.

The fruits of the war to topple Saddam Hussein are becoming apparent. Even Democrats are starting to acknowledge the significance of Libya's announcement. Ashton B. Carter, who served as assistant defense secretary in the Clinton administration, said the Iraq war was a turning point in convincing Col. Gadhafi to relinquish his weapons.
One senior Bush administration official told reporters last Friday night (Dec. 19) that Libya had progressed "much further" in its nuclear program than the United States had suspected, including acquisition of centrifuges that could be used to produce highly enriched uranium.

When you two finish ranting like idiots, the thread can continue.

When you two finish ranting like idiots, the thread can continue.

Monte Cargo is my husband. As I have stated before, I've read this board off and on for many years. When I joined several days ago, I thought my husband might wish to participate as well, so I encouraged him to take part in your political forum. We have separate computers but share an IP through a router.

We purposely picked names that were two words; a detail that was overlooked in the witch hunt. The idea was to ease ourselves into this situation as we know how emotionally invested many posters become in their respective message boards. If we wanted to fool you, we'd never have joined or posted at the same time.

We've participated on other boards without any explanation and maintained that zero connection between the two of us for years. I wouldn't be too quick with that pat on that back considering all of the clues we left in this case.

This is information we were more than willing to share, but the accusations flew, first in my husband's direction accusing him of being a return poster under another name, and they continued on until there was open discussion here and we imagine behind the scenes as well.

You yourself blatham had your doubts though and have complimented MC whether you agreed with him or not. Unlike the the little emotional wreck I appeared to be days ago, I can promise you that many of you are wrong about my education, my husband's whereabouts prior to this time, and how we truly interact on a message board.

I've had a difficult time of it, but I've kept my husband off of this particular thread as he was less than impressed with what was said here. That, and I fight my own battles.

We thought that if I chose a rather ridiculous looking avatar and name, coupled with sounding naive and emotional, that I wouldn't be perceived as any sort of threat as my husband comes on rather strong. The amazing thing is the least tolerant group is this political forum. I've posted for far too many years on political issues to be that sensitive!

So, in conclusion, it is clear that you need to change your rules. You need to state that husbands and wives cannot join at the same time and enjoy any sort of positive experience. You need to add that all newcomers will be subjected to labels such as trolls, uneducated, etc. You need to share how quick you are to judge, and how quick you are to remove yourselves from that same judgment.


We feel sorry for those of you that appear to be too insecure to share your board with any new arrivals. That was a big concern to us... not upsetting the balance that you've achieved here.

If we should decide not to return, a fond adieu to a select few of you that were fun to debate regardless of whether or not you agreed with us on a topic. Tico and roger, your names come to mind right off the top of my head. We hope that you both remain the true gentlemen that you have been to us.

Humankind cannot stand very much reality. ~ T.S. Elliot

If this description doesn't fit you and your husband, then welcome to A2K in anticipation of your civil non-flaming discussion contributions.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

If this description doesn't fit you and your husband, then welcome to A2K in anticipation of your civil non-flaming discussion contributions.

Thank you. I am unable to accept responsibility for my husband's posts anymore than he will accept responsibility for mine. I am a registered Democrat (althougn I often find myself somewhere in the middle)and MC a Republican.

I can understand that all kinds probably come here to stir up trouble. I have been on boards where I have spent the majority of my day reporting legitimate trolls and alties. It gets old.

I had friends that posted here so I hade been interested in this board for a while, but the last thing I ever want to do is be disruptive, and in fact in saying so on this thread, I am doing exactly that.
-----
edgarblythe, I answered on this thread a while back.

I can understand holding everyone to the same standards. Please keep in mind that we are new here and the desire is to fit in, not be a nuisance. My apologies for going off topic on your thread.