You folks are so historically naive that it should be disqualifying for you to participate in democracy.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. I know this new info scares you, try to act like a man.
I don't love Obama.
In the 1800s Hillary would be hanging in a public square somewhere, that much is for certain. In todays world traitors are elected by democrats.
Republicans are constantly mocked for being "stupid" but no group has as many low informed voters that have no interest in educating themselves of the truth quite like the left.
Does not matter who the right fields, the criminally rigged system of the democrats and its corrupt base will still use illegal voting tactics as before stated. It is an up hill battle but not impossible given Hillary's overtly corrupt dealings. Independents will make or break either side. Hopefully they have more morals than the left.
Yeah, that part about "history" seems to be confusing to you. Ronald Reagan funded a bunch of scabs hiding in the mountains of Afghanistan to fight the Russians who became known collectively as the Mujahideen. Among them was a young Osama bin Laden. After Afghanistan they morphed into what is now known as al Qaeda because Reagan dropped them like a hot rock once he no longer had any use for them. Then, when Saddam rolled into Kuwait the newly formed AQ wanted to oust him but were rebuffed by GHWB who instead put US troops on what is considered holy ground in the middle east. That directly lead to the attack on 9/11...
Specifically what are you disagreeing with? That Reagan funded the Mujahideen to fight the Russians in Afghanistan? That bin Laden was there in the Mujahideen? That al Qaeda was formed from what once was the Mujahideen? That al Qaeda wanted to be the ones to oust Saddam Hussien from Kuwait? That we rebuffed them and instead launched Operation Desert Storm? That al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 led by Osama bin Laden? The same young man Reagan called a "Freedom Fighter" when he was a part of the Mujahideen that Reagan allowed to flounder after he was done with them in Afghanistan?
You are historically ignorant and are therefore arguing from a position of ignorance. Learn history then try and form your opinions accordingly.
I can tell you're really mad about it, but it was Tom Hanks. So angry.
Okay, me neither but letting banks with ordinary deposits engage in derivative investments made the process legal again for the first time since the 30's. I don't know if those in charge back then could have envisioned CDO's made up of MBS's sold to investors across the globe, any more than the CDS bought and sold by the same entity such as a Goldman or AIG.
So now I have to conduct an entire class on middle eastern history because you are clueless? The United States, under treaty (international declaration) with what was at the time the Soviet Union, agreed to refrain from sticking our noses into Afghanistan (ie,.. no longer fund the Mujahideen) in April of 1988. We left them to their own devices. Completely pulled our support.
Do your research, Operation Cyclone began during the Carter administration. So, following your logic, Carter is the father of Al Qaeda. Regardless, it was terrible and short-sighted to arm such radicals then, and if true about Hillary, it is even more terrible and short-sighted to arm such radicals now given the historical example.
Nice. Keep attacking that Gold Star family. Ramp it up. You folks are beyond the pale. Just indecent. You really do need that "Sir, have you no sense of decency" moment and IMO event that won't save you from yourselves. You're just... gone.
