Reply With Quote
Which countries? You need to tell the Bush administration right now!
Whottt is going to get bin Laden!
And your're naive if you don't think it's countries that are the ultimate sponsors of terrorism.
Which countries? You need to tell the Bush administration right now!
Whottt is going to get bin Laden!
No...what's stupid is you thinking I was sayng he ran for election last time. I didn't say he ran for election. I said if he'd been elected, and I didn't specidy a year either...there's a difference there, and if you don't see it, the stupidity is on your part..not mine.
I didn't say he ran in 2004 or last time, so why would you say my original statement is a claim that he did?
You are really making up a bunch of lately. it's disappointing.
Fact.
You just said I made a claim that Guiliani ran for President in 2004 last time, when I never did so...I consider that more disappointing.
Oh he'd have definitely been in favor of it at some point...not a doubt about it.
But he'd have definitely gone aftter Usama first.
And whether he was against or for the Invasion of Iraq is a moot point since he had no say in the matter.
And you are the one who made another strawman by bringing up countries instead of Al Qaeda -- you remember them?
Yeah...because the ultimate cause, and funders of terrorism, are countries.
As is any argument that you make about his getting UBL by now had he been president.
Fact.
Why are you holding back all this valuable information from the US government? Whottt is going to get bin Laden!Yeah...because the ultimate cause, and funders of terrorism, are countries.
Would McCain have gone after Bin Laden first?
One month after the 9/11 attacks, McCain was already beating the war drum for Iraq. He was even going so far as to say that the anthrax turning up in Washington was from Iraq.
LETTERMAN: How are things going in Afghanistan now?
MCCAIN: I think we’re doing fine …. I think we’ll do fine. The second phase — if I could just make one, very quickly — the second phase is Iraq. There is some indication, and I don’t have the conclusions, but some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.
LETTERMAN: Oh is that right?
MCCAIN: If that should be the case, that’s when some tough decisions are gonna have to be made.
Please list them.
are you serious?
Can you not read your own quotes?
Do I again need to point out that every one was saying that at that time? And before?
Do you need me to point Hillary and Bill Clinton saying the exact same thing?
And John Kerry...and Al Gore, and John Edwards.
Dude...you are incapable of seeing anything from a different side...thus your view of reali y is a distorted one.
You only see the bad in Republicans...I see the bad in both. The Democrats are worse...
This is a tough subject, because honestly...I don't know anything about Islam other than the followers of the religion follow their religious texts and leaders TOO literally, to the point that creates violence/hate in the world. The religion didn't evolve with time..and throughout time as man started to understand the world, man started to understand that the only true way for peace on earth is through free trade of material goods; which is the opposite of what religious texts teach. Therein lies the problem.
Outside of all of this complicated set of issues, we remain TIED to foreign oil, which lead us to the middle east, Africa and elsewhere to protect the flow of oil to keep our nation running forward. You have to wonder if Arabs would hate us at all (outside of our relationship with Israel), if it weren't for our need to secure our flow of oil.
But I digress, to the OP, the omission of the word Radical was a big mistake, imo. It's extremism in ANY form that creates hatred in our world. We need to fight extremism, not religion.
Someday...you guys will figure out that if you'd given us anything other than an immediate pullout UN Asskisser candidate in 2004, you'd have won that election.
So who truly is the stupid one....
Why is it so ing hard to figure out that putting on the brakes or turning is a better way of stopping an accident than throwing the car into reverse?
PS: Because my view of reality isn't polarized...I know exactly what Rudy Guiliani is...and no, I don't think it's all good at all, in fact some of it is flat out terrifying, but there is no doubt this dude loves this country, and it's also something that will be incredibly effective against terrorism, and head leaders. And those negatives are nothing that can't be controlled by a Democratic Congress.
For instance...I don't think Obama is a pussy as he comes off as being somtimes. He's just trying to be nice and wants to be liked, when push comes to shove he will defend himself...the problem with a leader like that as opposed to Guilani...Guilani is the guy no one is going to test.
Exactly. So how can you say that Rudy or anyone else would have taken a different path or had a different result?
It's a tough question
, but im not interested in a troll opinion. Hence, the question wasn't directed at you.
It's not a tough question at all, hence my incredulity at your asking it.
they aren't as stupid as Bush, they know when they are being manipulated. You can't manipulate guys like McCain or Guiliani...or Bill Clinton for that matter, they are too smart for that. Bush is easy to manipulate...he's got a very simplistic world and America view. This does not mean he's not stubborn, because he is....
Sad that it was more rooted in reality than the 2004 Democratic Ticket and their leadership for the past 4 years.
Guiliani is different...he's like Elliott Ness with delusions of grandeur. He's all about getting the criminals and being in control. In some ways his world view is as simple as Bush's, in that America is always the good guy just because it's America, but in his view it's because of the rule of law, our laws, not anyone elses...but he's much smarter and he's also much more determined and focused.
McCain is different. He's got a much more complex world view than Guiliani or Bush. McCain is the least likely of the 3 to rush into a war out of some kind of pride or belief that America is always inherently the good guy. And while stubborn, he's less stubborn than both Bush and Guiliani. More willing to admit a mistake.
Last edited by whottt; 09-06-2008 at 04:51 PM.
That's true...but oddly back in 2000 when it was Bush v McCain I was totally thinking McCain was the crazy nut who would send us to war at the drop of a hat...boy was I wrong.
Did they show this video just before Rudy spoke? In other words, was Rudy part of the 9/11 tribute?
What's taking you so long?
I'm still waiting to see your explanation why you are so stupid and helpless to look it up yourself. Just say "I'm stupid and helpless, please look up the information for me, ChumpDumper" and I will oblige within seconds.
Definitely Saudi Arabia, Iraq(paid Palestinian Suicide Bombers) Syria, Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have to do so basically. My guess it that Egypt does too. Russia originally did, in fact they started the whole ing thing and both Russia and China might again now...ditto France.
And yes, we've done it too.
Now I know you will say that Iraq made it worse, but I will counter with not if Iraq's Democracy sticks it won't...because the reason those countries fund those groups(beyond it being a social program) is because they want the Wstern Democracy, and those Western Jews(that Europe, including our illustrious ally Great Britain) didn't want in Europe, out of the ME.
But a Democratic Iraq is a threat to them as well...thus Iraq is going to have to ally with Israel and us, just by ideology....and yes, those countries are going to make that exceedingly difficult to pull off.
And an ideological alliance with us and Israel takes away a huge recruiting tool of terrorism...and puts pressure on those governments to become Democratic. It's one less lie they can tell to stay in power and redirect the anger.
What our pullout would have done is to prove we don't really care...
And I find it endlessly amusing that the ultimate reasons for so many libs anti-war stance is that you really don't give a about the conditions those people live in, or what happens to them, or how bad it gets, you don't care if it ever changes, and you don't realize that it's only going to get worse and more dangerous. And it's going to keep being directed at us....
Those leaders are never going to say, we're ty leaders and America is great...they are always going to say we're great leaders and America is ty...it becomes a more difficult lie to pull off with a flourishing Iraq. It becomes an impossible lie. And that's when the cultural change and liberalization of the ME begins...in fact it alredy has. It started the day we went into Afghanistan and the biggest hit to it getting Saddam out of Iraq...because that was an Arab Nation.
That's what i thought troll. My stupidity is replying to you, because you're so tough on the internet. lol
I'm still waiting to see your explanation why you are so stupid and helpless to look it up yourself. Just say "I'm stupid and helpless, please look up the information for me, ChumpDumper" and I will oblige within seconds.
It's pretty ing simple.
There's nothing wrong with saying "Islamic terrorists." No DNC speech condemned the use of the word "Islamic" when describing terrorism.
There's also nothing wrong with just saying "terrorists" without specifying "Islamic." However, Rudy (and Rudy's speechwriters) felt there is something wrong with not specifying "Islamic" when discussing terrorism. They felt it was enough of an offense to include it in a convention speech as a criticism of the Democrats. Why is that?
I'll give you a hint since you are so completely stupid and helpless.
There is a government department that deals with foreign affairs, including terror.
Need any more help, idiot? Want the google search terms, dumbass? Let me know; I'm here to help stupid people like you.
They vocalized their opposition to terrorism. They didn't call the terrorists Muslims. So what?
I think we should not only say "Islamic terrorism," but we should further specify that we are fighting "Dark-haired male Islamic terrorism" because why should we be afraid to say everyone who has attacked us has been a man??
Uh...because Rudy's teleprompter was effing up and he started addlibbing.
That statement was all Rudy. How could anyone that is aware of Rudy's past words and actions think otherwise?
By the way...nice use of the fword.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions