Trump's red line

I'm sorry since you are a know it all, I figured you have already read this. LOL. But back to the issue, you haven't really said anything besides dispute anything that goes against your, "Special friend" Bambino.
As for ISBM's, do you think he has them now? Originally Posted by MT Pockets

They're ICBMs you idiot. And they've been testing them all year. They have the capacity to hit our mainland you chalooch. Remember, you need a bomb, to drop a bomb.

I would like to ask Neil Gorsuch if he could define cold. Then ask him if he could define freezing.



Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

People who cite Chomsky on any topic outside linguistics have two things in common: they tend to be wholly misinformed and possess no real understanding of history; hence, they're doomed to ignorantly repeat the same mistakes made by others before them.

I would like to ask Neil Gorsuch if he could define cold. Then ask him if he could define freezing Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I would like to ask eccieuser9500, why 90%+ of the D.C. SWAMP are libtardians(D)?

That would be a good question to ask Old-T, too.

If some nuke hit American cities would you complain that Trump didn't stop it by taking out the fat asshole leader Originally Posted by Stockinglover

WDF has said on multiple occasions that we should let terrorists hit the US mainland.

They're ICBMs you idiot. And they've been testing them all year. They have the capacity to hit our mainland you chalooch. Remember, you need a bomb, to drop a bomb. Originally Posted by bambino

My bad, I was thinking of what I see when you type. I See Bowl Movement.

I love how you jump at any chance to get off topic. Speaking of which, When you gonna bet fucktard? I made so easy you could not pass it up. I even give a parlay that put the odds in your favor tremendously, but you are to scared to bet. I guess your source on what I am about is a little flimsy. By the way did you find a male escort to take your food stamps yet? You better hope Trump doesn't fuck with your Medicare. free prostate exams. You will have to let Lusty start doing it again.

Originally Posted by WTF
That is a valid answer.

No, it's not. "GWB/Iraq War" is NOT a valid answer to the question - "If some nukes hit American cities would you complain that Trump didn't stop it by taking out the fat asshole leader?"

Or do you consider "Neville Chamberlain/Munich" to be an adequate answer as well?

A proper answer would start with either "Yes, I would complain that Trump didn't stop it..." or "No, I would not complain..." and then explain why.

You're evidently too scared to answer the question. Or are you just too stupid? Why don't you use one of your lifelines? Call your pals at the War Resisters League and ask them to send you the "right" answer.


http://www.rense.com/general21/wara.htm

Goering was right. You are a perfect example.

I see you trotted out your favorite quote, the one you use whenever you find yourself losing another foreign policy debate. If Goering was so smart, why did the fat thug end up cracking a cyanide capsule between his teeth in a Nuremberg jail cell? By the way, the Pyongyang fatass is cut from the same cloth as your mentor Goering was.


North Korea, you're scared of North Korea. China and Russia is who the fuck you better be scared of, if that is the perpetual state you want to assume. The chances are greater you'll be killed by lightening (sic) than a fucking nuke you faux conservative. No true conservative starts a preemptive War or argues for one.

Who said anything about starting a preemptive war? Stockinglover asked you a simple, direct question. If we sit back and wait and fatass launches nukes at us, would you be mad at Trump for failing to stop it?

And how the fuck do you know what the chances are of fatass launching his nukes? Are you privy to his inner-most thoughts and intentions? Even a blind fool can see that the proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems into the hands of more and more hostile, unstable states like Iran and North Korea increases the chances of an eventual nuclear catastrophe immeasurably. History, probability and common sense all tell us that. Now would you like to fly over to Tokyo and tell our Japanese friends they should worry more about lightning strikes than North Korea?



sic - get gov. S.S disability - " that why gov free stuff/the poor people stuff(else poor people will never get out of being poor - and now with the internet and computer movie/music program ... the web too learn so much thing good and bad ) need to be built cheap last forever "

Your naivete is surpassed only by your stupidity! Originally Posted by lustylad

I would like to ask eccieuser9500, why 90%+ of the D.C. SWAMP are libtardians(D)? Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Higher education. We have the HOTS.

People who cite Chomsky on any topic outside linguistics have two things in common: they tend to be wholly misinformed and possess no real understanding of history; hence, they're doomed to ignorantly repeat the same mistakes made by others before them. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Fencing is to carpet-bombing as opinions are to . . . ? Facts? IMHO

That is a valid answer.


http://www.rense.com/general21/wara.htm

Goering was right. You are a perfect example.


North Korea, you're scared of North Korea. China and Russia is who the fuck you better be scared of , if that is the perpetual state you want to assume. The chances are greater you'll be killed by lightening than a fucking nuke you faux conservative. No true conservative starts a preemptive War or argues for one.






. Originally Posted by WTF

Why should the US be "scared" of anyone you infantile idiot? We have the biggest economy, the most advanced technology, the most natural resources, and the best military. Only pussies like Obama can fuck things up. Which he did. This NoKo thing will pass. The fat guy imports 30 million in booze, Kobe beef from Japan and the best hookers that money can buy. He doesn't want to die.
Cooler heads will prevail. Now eat a cookie and go to bed.

Fencing is to carpet-bombing as opinions are to . . . ? Facts? IMHO Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Chomsky avoids "facts" like the plague; hence, his loyal, guillible followers are ignorant and misinformed. Stay here long, and you'll discover just how ignorant and misinformed you really are.

My bad, I was thinking of what I see when you type. I See Bowl Movement.

I love how you jump at any chance to get off topic. Speaking of which, When you gonna bet fucktard? I made so easy you could not pass it up. I even give a parlay that put the odds in your favor tremendously, but you are to scared to bet. I guess your source on what I am about is a little flimsy. By the way did you find a male escort to take your food stamps yet? You better hope Trump doesn't fuck with your Medicare. free prostate exams. You will have to let Lusty start doing it again. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Ya mean like YOUR hero seArgent shitburner does YOUR protological exams, MT Fluffer ? With a strapon like YOU like !

Let's start now. Please explain how he avoids them "like the plague."


We're pretty simple down here South of Chicago.



Or



My only affectation helps me focus.

My bad, I was thinking of what I see when you type. I See Bowl Movement.

I love how you jump at any chance to get off topic. Speaking of which, When you gonna bet fucktard? I made so easy you could not pass it up. I even give a parlay that put the odds in your favor tremendously, but you are to scared to bet. I guess your source on what I am about is a little flimsy. By the way did you find a male escort to take your food stamps yet? You better hope Trump doesn't fuck with your Medicare. free prostate exams. You will have to let Lusty start doing it again. Originally Posted by MT Pockets

Who just went off topic? You've exposed yourself many times as a fraud and a dumb fuck. This post illustrates what a loser you are.We know it, you know it. Now get lost faggot.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...rd_122806.html

Pick up in the morning, ok?

Let's start now. Please explain how he avoids them "like the plague."


We're pretty simple down here South of Chicago.



Or



My only affectation helps me focus. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Name another author who pretends to relate the *true history* of WWII's Pacific War who doesn't mention Japan's imperialistic expansion into China, SE Asia, the Rape of Nanking and the unprovoked Japanese attack on Pearl harbor and the Philippines, but goes overboard declaiming the U.S. use of the atomic bombs as nothing more than naked American imperialism.

Of all idiots, none is so useful as he [Chomsky] who can masquerade as a genius.

MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky recently denounced Hugo Chavez, accusing the Venezuelan strongman of making an "assault" on his nation's democracy and of cruelty with respect to a female judge he imprisoned for issuing an unwelcome ruling. The criticism made headlines, as the "renowned scholar" had long given aid and comfort to Ego-and-Mouth Chavez. In fact, when the leader denounced President Bush in an infamous 2006 U.N. address, it was Chomsky's book Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance that he waved and used as a prop. And Chomsky often praises Venezuela's socialist revolution, most recently saying, "It's hard to judge how successful they [the Venezuelan socialists] are, but if they are successful they would be seeds of a better world."

Well, socialism has only failed every time it's been tried, but I guess Chomsky's renowned intellect has finally figured out a way to do the same thing over and over again and achieve different results.

But some people never learn, and in our time they're known as leftists. It's bad enough when a starry-eyed teenager gloms onto a demagogue and then registers surprise when the scorpion acts in accordance with his nature, but it's downright pathetic when an old man behaves as if he has been born yesterday.

And Chomsky, it seems, is continually born again yesterday. In the late 1970s, he defended the Khmer Rouge at the very time that those Cambodian communists were in the midst of a genocidal campaign that ultimately claimed 30 percent of their nation's population. He steadfastly refused to believe reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities, calling them part of a "disinformation" campaign targeting a group that, he said, could usher in not only "national liberation but also ... a new era of economic development and social justice."

Now, understand that the Khmer Rouge weren't "just" genocidal maniacs -- something not unusual in the annals of communism. They formed what was perhaps the most cruel, bizarre, twisted, and incompetent government in modern history. Immediately upon taking power, they initiated their agrarian revolution, ordering the evacuation of Phnom Penh and other major urban centers; they even emptied hospitals and created a situation in which patients had to be pushed through the streets on hospital beds. They abolished the practice of religion; separated families; started history anew with their "Year Zero"; and murdered those showing signs of Western influence, such as the wearing of eyeglasses. And this is just a small sampling of what was a complete rending of every Cambodian tradition and institution (for more, click here).

Of course, Chomsky didn't "know" about this. Oh, if he had actually walked the Cambodian killing fields, stepped over the thousands of human skulls and retched at the smell of rotting flesh -- and, most particularly, if he had found himself in a re-education camp -- he would have "known." But he was too busy rationalizing. After all, he understood the facts of life: Communists are nice, social justice-oriented people. And they were being targeted by the big bad United States, the source of all the world's woes. So it was obvious that all the negative stories about them were Western propaganda. Renowned intellectuals know these things.

Admittedly, today Chomsky acknowledges reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities. He just denies reports of Chomsky Khmer Rouge support. He has his own Year Zero, I suppose, and it started when reality became sufficiently heavy to make rationalization seem like Holocaust denial. Hey, that fellow in 1977 was a different Chomsky. Renowned intellectuals just don't make such mistakes.

Or, they don't learn from them, anyway. And this brings us back to Chomsky on Chavez. Rory Carroll in The Guardian writes:

He [Chomsky]...faulted Chávez for adopting enabling powers to circumvent the national assembly. "Anywhere in Latin America there is a potential threat of the pathology of caudillismo [authoritarianism] and it has to be guarded against. Whether it's over too far in that direction in Venezuela I'm not sure, but I think perhaps it is. A trend has developed towards the centralisation of power in the executive which I don't think is a healthy development.

Well, Noam, you let us know when you are sure. We'd like the heads-up.

Then there are Chomsky's comments relating to the persecuted female judge, María Lourdes Afiuni. Carroll writes:

Chomsky said Chávez, who has been in power for 12 years, appeared to have intimidated the judicial system. "I'm sceptical that [Afiuni] could receive a fair trial. It's striking that, as far as I understand, other judges have not come out in support of her ... that suggests an atmosphere of intimidation."

Interestingly, Chomsky was never this measured in his statements condemning the U.S. As with all leftists, the worse his judgments, the more sure of them he is.

The great Roman orator and statesman Cicero once said, "Any man is liable to err; only a fool persists in error." Chomsky exhibits that typical leftist inability to discern good from evil, friend from foe. If he'd been a rabbit, he would have hopped into the fox's lair well before getting so long in the tooth. And if he didn't live in the West's cocoon of safety and comfort, he would ages ago have been swept away in a whirlwind of his own design. Chomsky just doesn't learn.

(American Thinker)

Chomsky's Follies

The professor's pronouncements about Osama Bin Laden are stupid and ignorant.
by Christopher Hitchens

We have no more reason to credit Osama Bin Laden's claim of responsibility, he [Chomsky] states, than we would have to believe Chomsky's own claim to have won the Boston Marathon.

[One] can't immediately decide whether or not this is an improvement on what Chomsky wrote at the time. Ten years ago [2001], apparently sharing the consensus that 9/11 was indeed the work of al-Qaida, Chomsky wrote that it was no worse an atrocity than President Clinton's earlier use of cruise missiles against Sudan in retaliation for the bomb attacks on the centers of Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

(Slate)