Page 8 of 10

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm
by Jim the Moron
Gabbard: a pox on both your houses . . .

"Democrats 'certainly not' anti-war anymore"
https://breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/ ... breitbart/

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:58 pm
by neverfail
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm
Gabbard: a pox on both your houses . . .

"Democrats 'certainly not' anti-war anymore"
https://breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/ ... breitbart/
:lol: :lol: :lol:

When were The Democrats ever anti-War Jim? To which party did Presidents JFK and LBJ belong to when they got your country into the Vietnam quagmire?

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:14 pm
by Doc
neverfail wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:58 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm
Gabbard: a pox on both your houses . . .

"Democrats 'certainly not' anti-war anymore"
https://breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/ ... breitbart/
:lol: :lol: :lol:

When were The Democrats ever anti-War Jim? To which party did Presidents JFK and LBJ belong to when they got your country into the Vietnam quagmire?
WWI Democrat president
WWII Democrat president
Korea Democrat president

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:56 am
by Milo
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:14 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:58 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm
Gabbard: a pox on both your houses . . .

"Democrats 'certainly not' anti-war anymore"
https://breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/ ... breitbart/
:lol: :lol: :lol:

When were The Democrats ever anti-War Jim? To which party did Presidents JFK and LBJ belong to when they got your country into the Vietnam quagmire?
WWI Democrat president
WWII Democrat president
Korea Democrat president
Civil war Republican president.

Iraq I Republican president.

Iraq II /Afghanistan Republican president.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:09 pm
by neverfail
Nice riposte Milo.
Milo wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:56 am

Civil war Republican president.
Yep, the very first Republican president ever. US Senator Jefferson Davis, future Confederate States president but at the time still opposed to succession along with a colleague southerner, apparently attempted to provide President-elect Lincoln a compromise solution in order to avert civil war but Lincoln would have none of it. It was apparently only after that that rejection that the first of the southern states string of successions, beginning with South Carolina, began.
Milo wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:56 am
Iraq I Republican president.
Justified by a UN resolution! Though I believe that George Bush the elder still needed some coaxing by Britain's Margaret Thatcher (she who had earlier liberated the Falkland Islands from Argentine occupation) before this cautious man finally committed US forces to Operation Desert Storm.
Milo wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:56 am
Iraq II /Afghanistan Republican president.
Ill advised wars of revenge for past humiliations?

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Sat Nov 09, 2019 1:30 pm
by Jim the Moron
It might be instructive to actually read Rep Gabbard's views as were expressed in the link previously posted.

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:04 pm
by Doc
Milo wrote:
Sat Nov 09, 2019 2:56 am
Doc wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 10:14 pm
neverfail wrote:
Fri Nov 08, 2019 12:58 pm
Jim the Moron wrote:
Thu Nov 07, 2019 6:58 pm
Gabbard: a pox on both your houses . . .

"Democrats 'certainly not' anti-war anymore"
https://breitbart.com/politics/2019/11/ ... breitbart/
:lol: :lol: :lol:

When were The Democrats ever anti-War Jim? To which party did Presidents JFK and LBJ belong to when they got your country into the Vietnam quagmire?
WWI Democrat president
WWII Democrat president
Korea Democrat president
Civil war Republican president.
Democratic president as well (Jefferson Davis) Plus fort sumpter was an attack by democrats on the republican government of A Lincoln

Iraq I Republican president.

Iraq II /Afghanistan Republican president.
4 yeasr under republican president 8 years under Democrat president.


Libya Democrat president
Syria Democrat president
Yemen Democrat president

EIngH-oWoAAf5qa.jpeg
EIngH-oWoAAf5qa.jpeg (51.75 KiB) Viewed 231 times

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:04 am
by Sertorio
...Since she entered the race for the Democratic nomination Gabbard has been under consistent attack by the establishment. They repeatedly make the arrogant mistake of trying to bully from their pulpit believing they can destroy a person of obvious character into submission who dissents from foreign policy orthodoxy, the true third-rail of American politics.

The hope is that Gabbard will make a mistake which can be then played ad nauseum, ad infinitum until she slinks off the stage in shame.

But Gabbard is too strong for that. And the difference in demeanor and character was plainly evident as she turned on Joy Behar, the lead torchbearer for all things anti-Trump, war-like and pathetic.


Gabbard didn’t waste time, taking the fight to The View before they knew what was happening. Because she has learned in this game that you do not fight on ground prepared by your opponent.

You set the stage. You command the field. It’s safe to say she’s learned something while being in the military for the past seventeen years.

Doing this, you make your opponents look petty, venal and stupid for saying the things they’re saying.

By confronting her accusers directly Gabbard showed everyone watching the difference between the caricature created by Clinton and her cronies on The View and the reality of her character.

And that is the kind of narrative-breaking moment that sinks careers for some and defines them for others...

https://tomluongo.me/2019/11/10/gabbard ... -the-view/
No need to comment...

Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:39 am
by Doc
Sertorio wrote:
Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:04 am
...Since she entered the race for the Democratic nomination Gabbard has been under consistent attack by the establishment. They repeatedly make the arrogant mistake of trying to bully from their pulpit believing they can destroy a person of obvious character into submission who dissents from foreign policy orthodoxy, the true third-rail of American politics.

The hope is that Gabbard will make a mistake which can be then played ad nauseum, ad infinitum until she slinks off the stage in shame.

But Gabbard is too strong for that. And the difference in demeanor and character was plainly evident as she turned on Joy Behar, the lead torchbearer for all things anti-Trump, war-like and pathetic.


Gabbard didn’t waste time, taking the fight to The View before they knew what was happening. Because she has learned in this game that you do not fight on ground prepared by your opponent.

You set the stage. You command the field. It’s safe to say she’s learned something while being in the military for the past seventeen years.

Doing this, you make your opponents look petty, venal and stupid for saying the things they’re saying.

By confronting her accusers directly Gabbard showed everyone watching the difference between the caricature created by Clinton and her cronies on The View and the reality of her character.

And that is the kind of narrative-breaking moment that sinks careers for some and defines them for others...

https://tomluongo.me/2019/11/10/gabbard ... -the-view/
No need to comment...

They aren't looking for mistake Sertorio they are looking for excuse. And "they" are really starting to panic Thinking is basically consideration of what "You know to be true" as possibly a falsehood

The Democrat establishment is telling everyone that Gabbard and many many others are field slaves.

I have often seen people do that to Ben Carson. "He is stupid" "He is an uncle Tom." "He is a horrible person." "He is a nut job."

To which I always reply "Dr. Ben Carson has saved the lives of 1000's of children. How many children's lives have you saved?"



People are starting to think for themselves. Because "they" are starting to panic, thinking will only increase.


Re: Tulsi Gabbard

Posted: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:47 am
by Jim the Moron
Rep Gabbard "has learned in this game that you do not fight on ground prepared by your opponent."

I'm looking forward to the forthcoming debate, when the "moderators" try to put Tulsi on the defensive.