Because the part I quoted was actually the harshest, where he was telling the Soviets what they had to do now, not what they had done in the past. That's why I quoted it, it's the section that would most support your theses, and it doesn't come close.
Tom, you can't see it, but you're so desperate to find anything to discredit Obama and the liberals that you can't properly interpret what you read. Even the data you throw at us fails to have the "Take that, varlet!" effect you seem so convinced it will have. You have your own version of BDS, and you are as incapable of seeing anything but evil in Obama as you were incapable of seeing anything wrong with his predecessor. Your ideology has clouded your reason.
That is what sparks the incredulity and outrage amongst your critics here, it's not what you believe (what we all believe is always a matter of how we interpret facts, not the facts themselves); it's your inability to see reality, or even yourself clearly.
Current Events » in reply to So the first part of the speech means nothing?
NO
The whole thread (42 posts)
- You have got to be kidding me.
- re: You have got to be kidding me.
- Actually, it's too soon to comment.
- More moral support would be nice.
- I'm certainly glad you had something important to say. (n/t)
- Explain the moral high ground the US has here. Marsby, or anyone.
- The Voice of Iran
- There have been a few posts.
- Indeed.