What a bag...
that's kind of like asking someone in the west side of San Antonio to publicly condemn La Eme. nothing would be gained except a fresh corpse for the medical examiner's office to cut open.
Is that how he avoids every question?
I don't know? Will you condemn Hamas?
he can say that a student group at UCSD (or any group for that matter) has terrorists ties/sympathies without having to prove or clarify that position because he can pull the old "condemn Hamas before I answer any questions" card.
I agree -- she's quite the bag.
Another true opinion:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsCont...Coptic-Ch.aspx
his question answered her question.
No, it didn't.
Him... Head of Hezbolla: "I hope that JEWS Gather in Israel so we don't have to hunt them down globally" For it or against it?
Her: For It
And how is he the one being the ?
So it is how he avoids every question.
He said it himself.
Thanks.
So since you are avoiding sec24's question, that makes you a ?
who cares?
I don't see why one necessarily has to be for one and against the other. I find them both douchy.
Simple.
This forum is full of anti-Semitics.
Horowitz is about as shrill as they come, though you don't really see it here.
I thought he was quite direct and correct in is questions and answers.
Or at least people that are amused by thoughts of genocide...
There's only one bag in that video and he's a dude. The other one is an ignorant piece of lowlife who should have been put down long ago for being a racist ing pig...
course, she has her rights... but one can dream
/rant over
Bravo, WC.
If swearing out public oaths against officially identified terrorist groups is now required as a demonstration of civic bona fides, why did the former US officials who recently met with the MEK (messianic Marxists, btw) overseas and raised their voices to denounce the policies of the US regarding them, meet no aggrieved clamor among the GOP faithful upon their return?
Oh, right, because the MEK is Iranian, and the former officials who stood up for Marxist, millenialist terrorists in foreign lands, in utter contumacy of official US policy regarding them, were Republicans.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-07-2011 at 03:35 AM.
This thread doesn't deserve my whitty input.
Good day, sir.
(belch)
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-07-2011 at 03:36 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)