Guest American Woman Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Shame about your head injury. I mean, I can't imagine anybody deliberately writing something like the above unless gray matter was actually seeping out of their ears and nostrils. Sometimes your sig line is just soooo appropriate, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 23, 2008 Report Share Posted June 23, 2008 Why would they do that when as you like to remind us ad naseum, Canada is a willing partner in The War Against Terror. Because you have HRCs and no death penalty (except in Afghanistan). Shame about your head injury. I mean, I can't imagine anybody deliberately writing something like the above unless gray matter was actually seeping out of their ears and nostrils. Yet it remains child's play to frost your cookies...carry on the good fight as you must. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted June 24, 2008 Author Report Share Posted June 24, 2008 The O.P. just goes to show that satire is well and truly kaput.As for the rest.... It's interesting: there have been as many attacks on U.S. soil in the seven years since 9-11 as in the seven years prior to it: zero. It seems unusual to credit Bush for returning things to the status quo when the simpler explanation- that there just aren't many terrorists in the U.S- is the more logical one. In the meanwhile: what is the state of the rest of the world, terrorism wise? 9-11 aside, the U.S. was never much of a focus for a movement that has always been chiefly concerned with gaining power in its own lands. Transnational terrorism of the Al Q'adea stripe was never the main threat and it remains a bit player despite its name brand cachet. Somehow you don't count the Khobar Tower, 1998 embassy or 2000 USS Cole attacks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted July 3, 2008 Report Share Posted July 3, 2008 Somehow you don't count the Khobar Tower, 1998 embassy or 2000 USS Cole attacks? None of which occurred on U.S. soil (unless you want to get pedantic about embassies). Someone equally pedantic could point out that there have been innumerable terrorist attacks on U.S. targets since 9-11-in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many against U.S. allies. Look: either Muslims terrorism is a grave and growing threat or it isn't. You can't beat the alarmist drum with one hand and pat yourself on the back with the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 None of which occurred on U.S. soil I'm almost positive that the first WTC bombing occured on U.S. soil, and was a product of Muslims terrorism. Link I'm sure some of you will recognize one of the names involved, Kaled Shaikh Mohammed. He'd turn out to have a much bigger role in a much larger attack down the road. I guess the convictions and jailings of some of his peers, wasn't quite the deterent the Clinton Administration's law enforcement approach to the problem had hoped for. Go figure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gc1765 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 What is 2001 - 1993? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 I came across the following photo of Obama on a conservative blog. http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/arc...of-Chicago.html That photo begs for a caption but I couldn't think of anything clever that didn't include the phrase Saint Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 9, 2008 Report Share Posted July 9, 2008 I came across the following photo of Obama on a conservative blog.http://www.theneweditor.com/index.php?/arc...of-Chicago.html That photo begs for a caption but I couldn't think of anything clever that didn't include the phrase Saint Obama. Ahh, a very nice picture of the Messiah! Here's another one that begs for a caption. Pic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 This one already has a caption. http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/X/...h_brokeback.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 man you guys must have gone to "im a sarcastic asshole" school because you are all masters of your crafts HAHA! But seriously on topic Obama is something of enigma to me. Look at his recent vote on warrantless wiretaps? I mean is that not that complete opposite of what being a social liberal is all about? I can't figure this guy out. Is he just positioning himself to look reasonable to moderates? To me he just looks like hes sacrificing values to get elected. And because of that, If hes willing to throw out core beliefs held by his political party and "SHOULD" be held by himself then why the heck would I want to vote for him. Just a personal observation. Personally I think the Government is using the threat of terrorist action to strip away are freedoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Personally I think the Government is using the threat of terrorist action to strip away are freedoms.I understand that argument, but the reality is that there are so many innocuous communications that the Feds are going to focus on people who seek the freedom to kill us. Trust me, the FBI, with a total of about 25,000 agents (or less) has better things to do than sift e-mails and phone calls relating to the organization of Saturday hockey or soccer games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Trust me, the FBI, with a total of about 25,000 agents (or less) has better things to do than sift e-mails and phone calls relating to the organization of Saturday hockey or soccer games. He should trust you that they are not abusing the use of wiretaps for political or nefarious purposes? How would you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 He should trust you that they are not abusing the use of wiretaps for political or nefarious purposes? How would you know?Nixon, the last President that tried to abuse wiretaps, didn't fare so well. That is a well-remembered, cautionary tale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moderateamericain Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 I understand that argument, but the reality is that there are so many innocuous communications that the Feds are going to focus on people who seek the freedom to kill us. Trust me, the FBI, with a total of about 25,000 agents (or less) has better things to do than sift e-mails and phone calls relating to the organization of Saturday hockey or soccer games. Yeah but you also have to consider the NSA and the CIA as well. If you dont think they are looking around in Deerborn Michigan or Coldwater your crazy lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 Yeah but you also have to consider the NSA and the CIA as well. If you dont think they are looking around in Deerborn Michigan or Coldwater your crazy lol Again there are reasons to snoop those places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 We all see what a phumphering fool Obama is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 6, 2009 Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 We all see what a phumphering fool Obama is. Definitely. It looks as though he's a lot better at running for President, than actually being President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 6, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 6, 2009 Definitely. It looks as though he's a lot better at running for President, than actually being President. His approval rating has plunged faster than any elected President in history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.