Amazing and not possibly true

[feralkid]

verbal Democratic representative from New York




As opposed to written Democratic Representative from New York?

Did you mean "Verbose"?

 

[imported_Condor]

Very verbal works as does verbose.

 

[Jhhnn]

Nah, Condor, your remark about Rangel not supporting democracy for all people is specious. That's not what he said. He said it wasn't worth American blood, specifically in Iraq.

While we generally believe that self-determination is democracy, that doesn't mean that we can impose it on others. Not everybody believes in democracy, oddly enough, often those who espouse it quite openly. And, as I pointed out earlier, and which you've chosen to ignore, that wasn't the original rationale, anyway. And, apparently, it's just an ad hoc after the fact rationalization, anyway, given the way the situation is unfolding. At some point, we'll just declare victory and leave, no matter what the reality of the situation. We'll call it democracy, whatever it is. I mean, we like to refer to Israel as a democracy, right? And we really don't like anybody talking down about our friends in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan, Nigeria, or even Uzbekistan or KSA, where the Monarchy will flat out tell you that they rule by divine right...

Sheesh, if we can't choose friends who are democracies, how can we condemn our self-selected enemies who aren't either?

 

[umbrella39]

American lives shouldn't be given to support democracy and freedom.

That about sums it up as it applies to Iraq.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I thank Rangel is an idiot for many things, however it is just as easy to twist your words into a case for overthrowing this administration by violence as to compare the Civil War to Iraq. I know it's fun and all, but it goes beyond moderately silly.

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: Condor
I am just watching Meet The Press and The Honorable Charlie Rangel, verbal Democratic representative from New York just stated that American lives shouldn't be given to support democracy and freedom. His statement was very clear and without ambuiguity. Is that retroactive? Is this a black representative saying on national television that it was wrong for thousands of northern soldiers to come to the south to free the slaves? I don't see how the party can slice that hair. If it is wrong to support democracy and freedom now, it was wrong then. Is the Democratic Party so desperate that they are willing to say that everything that we have done in history to spread democracy has been wrong? Were we wrong to send troops into WWII? He said that he is a veteran of Korea and that soldiers are still there. Is the Democratic Party becoming isolationist? Is he really speaking for his electorate? Is the party really leaning in that direction? Only The person has importance, the neighborhood is irrelevant? Helping others is not worth the price? Transcript for this mornings broadcast are not up yet. I couldn't believe my ears.

I missed the part where Iraq seceded from the Union. When did that happen? Was it a slave state, free state or still just a territory?

What Rangel didn't say and should have was that it was criminal for the US to invade Iraq and then totally dismantle everything that was the government. Have you noticed how much trouble it is to resurrect something remotely resembling a security force? Living in Baghdad must be hell in the summer with no reliable electricity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

BTW, this is what was said

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20 in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.

REP. RANGEL: By American troops?

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.


Know what? I would NEVER let my son die for Bush in Iraq. I know someone who had it happen, and they thought he was protecting his country from WMDs, then he found out he wasn't. As far as they are concerned he died for nothing.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
BTW, this is what was said

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20 in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.

REP. RANGEL: By American troops?

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.


Know what? I would NEVER let my son die for Bush in Iraq. I know someone who had it happen, and they thought he was protecting his country from WMDs, then he found out he wasn't. As far as they are concerned he died for nothing.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

And how many northern soldiers died to free the slaves and how many American soldiers died to liberate Europe? The statement was not pronounced with limits! If he is defining America, it is not the America I was raised in.

Oh, and thanks for looking that up. I tried, but apparently they don't post until after the program.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
BTW, this is what was said

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20 in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.

REP. RANGEL: By American troops?

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.


Know what? I would NEVER let my son die for Bush in Iraq. I know someone who had it happen, and they thought he was protecting his country from WMDs, then he found out he wasn't. As far as they are concerned he died for nothing.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

And how many northern soldiers died to free the slaves and how many American soldiers died to liberate Europe? The statement was not pronounced with limits!

But it did have context. I bet you knew that though.

OK, imagine this: George Bush admits to wanting to harm the US!

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."?Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

His own words!


Edit: Notice he put no limit on how much harm he intends to do to us!

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Condor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
BTW, this is what was said

SEN. GRASSLEY: The president did not declare war on January the 20 in his speech. What he declared is the natural goal of human beings all over the world and that's simply to be free. It's just natural.

REP. RANGEL: By American troops?

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.


Know what? I would NEVER let my son die for Bush in Iraq. I know someone who had it happen, and they thought he was protecting his country from WMDs, then he found out he wasn't. As far as they are concerned he died for nothing.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.

And how many northern soldiers died to free the slaves and how many American soldiers died to liberate Europe? The statement was not pronounced with limits!

But it did have context. I bet you knew that though.

This is the context and I can't see any meaning but that people don't want their children to die for other people's freedom. That goes against what America has been about for 229 years. That pretty much covers every war we have been in. We fought for the freedom of our little group of early settlers and not everyone fought, which means that all of those soldiers in the war for Independence fought for their personal freedom and the freedom for everyone else in the colonies. Most of the wars we have fought have been on foreign soil. That is a little difficult to define as not being for other people's freedom. Sorry, like I said initially, that hair just doesn't split. It does follow that no one wants anyone to die, but that happens in the defense of freedom. When you don the uniform, you know the implications. This could extend as well to police forces right here in the United States. They are also willing (hope they don't, of course) to die for anothers freedom from crime and criminals. Would he also say that no one wants their children to die to protect the public? Firefighters anyone? This could penetrate deeply into the very core of our society. Many people know that they don't have to be prepared to fight for their freedom because there is someone else who is willing to do so and that someone else knows that there many who are unable to fight their own wars.

SEN. GRASSLEY: It's in man's basic nature going back to John Locke that people want to be free and they're born free.

REP. RANGEL: And they don't want their children to die for other people's freedom.



OK, imagine this: George Bush admits to wanting to harm the US!

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."?Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

His own words!


Edit: Notice he put no limit on how much harm he intends to do to us!

 

[slyedog]

charles rangel has never been anything but a mouthpeice for ted kennedy. he blabs plenty but nobody pays any attention to him. so if he said it or not doesn't matter

 

[slyedog]

charles rangel has never been anything but a mouthpeice for ted kennedy. he blabs plenty but nobody pays any attention to him. so if he said it or not doesn't matter

 

[Jhhnn]

What a total crock of manure, Condor.

America generally goes to war in defense of her allies, and when her own legitimate interests are threatened. I stress "legitimate".

Without the false threats and accusations from the Admin wrt Iraq, the public wouldn't have given the Prez's war machine enough gas to get a pissant's motor scooter halfway around a dime.

If he'd said "Let's invade Iraq to free the people who live there", he'd have gotten a chorus of the old Bronx cheer, and some rotten vegetables as well. We went to war because our leadership convinced many of us that the Iraqis were a threat, and when it turns out they were a paper tiger, we get this guilt trip routine...

 

[TRUMPHENT]

Originally posted by: slyedog
charles rangel has never been anything but a mouthpeice for ted kennedy. he blabs plenty but nobody pays any attention to him. so if he said it or not doesn't matter

Charlie Rangel certainly doesn't get listened to because this thread obviously does not exist. Rangel's draft proposal was genius. The draft age children of the NeoCon's must have a chill up their spines for at least a second or two. That's the closest they will ever get to military service, much less a combat zone.

 

[MajorCaliber]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Spread Democracy by using Mass Murder?

We stopped the Mass Murder in Afganistan, and Iraq! We are the Freedom Fighters!