Fence_Sitter Posted August 22, 2003 Posted August 22, 2003 ahem... JB is a fucking retard... quit trying to talk with him... jeezus... either he is the biggest moron ever or he is the king of trolls, but i doubt the latter... Quote
j_b Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 yes, of course, we can always look forward to a few seasoned insults from our friend fence-sitter. next time, he just may try to discuss what he disagrees with. Quote
IceIceBaby Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 911 it is all Clinton administration fault since he chickened in Somalia and cut the budget for the army rendering the intelligence useless (CIA…yeah that’s a place to cut cost first…smart…very smart) lets say that the man was THE TOOL (which all tools will be judge by) his foreign policy was pathetic at best he INDORSED TERROR and Hi(t)llary Clinton were French kissing Linda Arafat….Yeah the same pp that when 911 happen were jumping in the streets with joy yelling on top of their lungs “ALLAH WHO ACKBAR” death to the American Zionist infidel people… You pp have such a short memory all cushioned by the geographical remoteness of your state… If you don’t do it NO ONE WILL!!! And if you don’t react it will be a sign of weakness who you trying to reason with… TERROR??? An animals that don’t value their own life needless to say other values of society such as murdering, lying, and stealing TERROR cannot be negotiated with. TERROR has to be eliminated BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE…yes, that include life Here is some Sun Tzu for you: “Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease” “the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued” ”Getting the enemy to approach on his own accord is a matter of showing him advantage;” ”To achieve a withdrawal that cannot be pursued, depart with superior speed” ”Where if one who does battle with full force survives, and one who does not do battle with full force perishes, this is called deadly ground.” ”Have the enemy be separated and unable to assemble” there are five dangerous traits of a general: He who is reckless can be killed. He who is cowardly can be captured. He who is quick tempered can be insulted. He who is moral can be shamed. He who is fond of the people can be worried. These five traits are faults in a general, and are disastrous in warfare. Live (if you lucky) and learn Quote
Fence_Sitter Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 j_b said: yes, of course, we can always look forward to a few seasoned insults from our friend fence-sitter. next time, he just may try to discuss what he disagrees with. wah biatch i have learned long ago not to bother with your sorts... you got yer way and you are plenty satisfied with bein in the dark... have a weekend and donkey punch your boyfriend for me... Quote
fleblebleb Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 trask said: "Yes, I invented the internet" - Al Gore This one has got to have been a misguided attempt at humor... The truth behind it is that Gore had a (leading?) role in the Washington committees that brought about the legal changes that made the Internet available for commercial use. Prior to all that the only traffic that was allowed on the backbone networks was military and academic. Don't go slamming me for being for or against Gore, btw. I vote elsewhere and couldn't care less about him. I like the Internet part of this little factoid though... Massive changes happened in the early 90s, and Al Gore was one of the instigators. Quote
mothboy88 Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 IceIceBaby said: 911 it is all Clinton administration fault since he chickened in Somalia and cut the budget for the army rendering the intelligence useless (CIA…yeah that’s a place to cut cost first…smart…very smart) lets say that the man was THE TOOL (which all tools will be judge by) his foreign policy was pathetic at best he INDORSED TERROR and Hi(t)llary Clinton were French kissing Linda Arafat….Yeah the same pp that when 911 happen were jumping in the streets with joy yelling on top of their lungs “ALLAH WHO ACKBAR” death to the American Zionist infidel people… You pp have such a short memory all cushioned by the geographical remoteness of your state… If you don’t do it NO ONE WILL!!! And if you don’t react it will be a sign of weakness who you trying to reason with… TERROR??? An animals that don’t value their own life needless to say other values of sosicty such as murdering, lying, and stealing TERROR cannot be negotiated with. TERROR has to be eliminated BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE…yes, that include life Here is some Sun Tzu for you: “Generally the one who first occupies the battlefield awaiting the enemy is at ease” “the one who comes later and rushes into battle is fatigued” ”Getting the enemy to approach on his own accord is a matter of showing him advantage;” ”To achieve a withdrawal that cannot be pursued, depart with superior speed” ”Where if one who does battle with full force survives, and one who does not do battle with full force perishes, this is called deadly ground.” ”Have the enemy be separated and unable to assemble” there are five dangerous traits of a general: He who is reckless can be killed. He who is cowardly can be captured. He who is quick tempered can be insulted. He who is moral can be shamed. He who is fond of the people can be worried. These five traits are faults in a general, and are disastrous in warfare. Live (if you lucky) and learn Yeah, Clinton was the first president to "chicken" out of an adversive military engagement. Its a good thing you don't have "...a short memory all cushioned by the geographical remoteness of your state..." But if you were to stroll a little further down memory lane, you might remember an event more egregious than the Somalia pullout. 241 Marines were murdered in a Shi'ite terrorist truck bombing in Beirut in 1983. How did the great military leader Reagan respond? We pulled out a couple of months later without achieving any of the original objectives. But the terrorists apparently didn't garner any "INDORSMENT" of their tactics from Beirut. They are only encouraged by foriegn policy bumblings from Democratic administrations. It must have been when Clinton "INDORSED" terrorism that Iran became part of the "Axis of Evil." Because back during the Reagan's administration, he must have been following Sun Tzu's rules to mitigate their terrorist potential. While "TERROR cannot be negotiated with. TERROR has to be eliminated BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE…yes, that include life..." it appears terror (or the terrorist state of Iran) can be sold United States arms to get American hostages released by (gasp) terrorists in the Middle East. But Reagan did have his illegal Central American war that he didn't have the balls to try to justify overtly in front of Congress and the American people. So I guess he really needed the bloody money. And he had "no specific recollection" of that whole Iran-Contra thing, so its all good. Thanks, IceIceBAby for pointing out that this whole terrorism thing is soley the fault of Clinton policies. No conservative ever has or will "INDORSE" terrorism. Quote
IceIceBaby Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 mothboy88 said: 241 Marines were murdered in a Shi'ite terrorist truck bombing in Beirut in 1983. How did the great military leader Reagan respond? We pulled out a couple of months later without achieving any of the original objectives October 23, 1983, Beirut, Lebanon. A truck loaded with a bomb crashed into the lobby of the U.S. Marines headquarters in Beirut, killing 241 soldiers and wounding 81. The attack was carried out by Hizballah with the help of Syrian intelligence and financed by Iran. It is all started in 1968 when Johnson/Vietnam was in office (funny how is it that any time that a democrat leave an office they make sure that they gotten the US in the deepest SHIT just so they (the Democrats) can claim that it is the republican fault) mothboy88 said: It must have been when Clinton "INDORSED" terrorism that Iran became part of the "Axis of Evil." Because back during the Reagan's administration, November 4, 1979, Teheran, Iran. After President Carter (major DEMOCRAT “Peanut man”) agreed to admit the Shah of Iran into the U.S. ., Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and took 66 American diplomats hostage. Thirteen hostages were soon freed, but the remaining 53 were held until their release on January 20, 1981. But it is all a Democratic legacy going back to Roosevelt and Truman….you know the democrat know how to start the fire (you is a prime sample) but don’t know how to put it out …but then they criticizing anyone who try to clean THEIR messy shit Quote
mothboy88 Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 IceIceBaby said:[ ... But it is all a Democratic legacy going back to Roosevelt and Truman….you know the democrat know how to start the fire (you is a prime sample) but don’t know how to put it out …but then they criticizing anyone who try to clean THEIR messy shit I am not being an apoligist for Democratic administrations. I am not even a Democrat, even though you claim I am a "prime sample [sic]". If thats a some sort of homoerotic compliment, thanks, I guess I'm flattered. But I am married. Of course some Democrats have had elements of their foriegn policy that misguided in retrospect. So have Republicans. You seem to be suggesting (please correct me if I mistook you) that all foriegn policy problems are soley the fault of Democratic policies. Anything that the Republicans do that is questionable was some how the fault of an earlier Democratic policy. You offered some links that list out acts of terrorism against the US. Your links don't offer any analysis as to how the Democrats caused these acts. Are you really suggesting that Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Carter somehow forced Reagan to give up in Beirut in the face American casualties? Somehow former Democratic presidents made Reagan trade US weapons with Iran so the terrorist groups they controlled would release our hostages? Thats ludicrous. It appears to me the following could be a summation of your political outlook: Your side is always right. But if it appears to be wrong, it must have been the other sides fault. Good things that happen while your side controls the government are soley because of you side. Bad things are soley attributed to a previous bad administration. Again, please correct me if my perception is wrong. I think there is an equal distribution of people who ascribe to the aforementioned approach on the right and left. I don't find their contributions to a debate very useful. If a person isn't capable of some introspective critisism of political ideaologies and policies he or she ascribes it works to discredit any valid arguments the person trys to make. To say that Clinton and other Democrats are soley repsonsible for 9/11 is just as crazy as liberals saying the current state of the economy is soley due to Bush's policies. Things as complex as terrorism and economic trends occur over a continuum of time and no one president can ever fully take credit for or shirk events that happen during his administration. Also - The suggestion that Democratic strategists sit around trying to get us into problems and then lose and election to make Republicans is very entertaining. FYI - I'll be on the pennisula starting tonight so I will have to bug out of this discussion for a few days. Quote
Scott_J Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 He probably did it on purpose. Mixing metaphors is standard wit fare for some people. He didn't actually "lose" the election, as they didn't count all the ballots in Florida. The election was rigged. Great isn't it! Quote
Scott_J Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 Politics is like arguing cars, horses, sports teams etc. No one is right and no one will win. Its all BS. We all vote and feel our own way. Mine is right and the rest of you can fuck off. Quote
IceIceBaby Posted August 23, 2003 Posted August 23, 2003 mothboy88 said: You seem to be suggesting (please correct me if I mistook you) that all foreign policy problems are solely the fault of Democratic policies. not at all...just for some reason everyone forgets of their own fuckups...and pointing the finger on each other and who gets hurt me and you...it is not about R and D conflict it is about the man...and so far Bush is the only president in years that I can identify with mothboy88 said: You offered some links that list out acts of terrorism against the US. Your links don't offer any analysis as to how the Democrats caused these acts. simple who was in office at the time and when the chain started mothboy88 said: Are you really suggesting that Roosevelt, Truman, Johnson, and Carter somehow forced Reagan to give up in Beirut in the face American casualties? Somehow, former Democratic presidents made Reagan trade US weapons with Iran so the terrorist groups they controlled would release our hostages? Thats ludicrous. Again look at the web document I supplied previously and you will see that it started way before Regan...so happen when the Democrats were in government.... and also look how the President PP can backstab him throwing the shit on him and blaming him for all mothboy88 said: Again, please correct me if my perception is wrong. you are wrong...the way I see it is Don’t highlight someone mistakes if you don’t like your mistake to be shown in the spot light... mothboy88 said: I think there is an equal distribution of people who ascribe to the aforementioned approach on the right and left. I don't find their contributions to a debate very useful. Finally, we agree on something mothboy88 said: If a person isn't capable of some introspective criticism of political ideologies and policies he or she ascribes it works to discredit any valid arguments the person tries to make. To say that Clinton and other Democrats are solely responsible for 9/11 is just as crazy as liberals’ saying the current state of the economy is solely due to Bush's policies. Thank you....here there is someone with a brain (that functions on his own)...as I said leave the man(bush) alone he is doing the best he can (which is way better then most presidents so far) and I don’t care what political party he belong to...(I was a democrat for the first Clinton administration...and then I just hated the bustard) mothboy88 said: Things as complex as terrorism and economic trends occur over a continuum of time and no one president can ever fully take credit for or shirk events that happen during his administration. Amen...tell it to the democrats mothboy88 said: Also - The suggestion that Democratic strategists sit around trying to get us into problems and then lose and election to make Republicans is very entertaining. Funny how circumstances speaks for them self’s mothboy88 said: FYI - I'll be on the peninsula starting tonight so I will have to bug out of this discussion for a few days. I hope you climbing and having a great time Come back safe so we can fart some more politics Quote
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted August 25, 2003 Posted August 25, 2003 sisu_suomi said: Politics is like arguing cars, horses, sports teams etc. No one is right and no one will win. Its all BS. We all vote and feel our own way. Mine is right and the rest of you can fuck off. Alright, that's it. You're catching a beating now! Quote
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.