Bush family protects terrorist to win votes

[KK]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
I heard Bush also made the economy tank early in his term, then he pushed the anti-recession button so that the economy will swing back towards the end of the term...

This way he can win the election with a majority of the votes this time.

Bush it doing a whole lot better terrorist-stomping than any democrat could do, if only he would give us back our civil rights!!

what civil rights did he take away? i am still able to speak freely, i have my right to privacy, i can still own a gun.

You just haven't been affected personally yet, give it time.

You have a gun? You obviously don't live in California or New York then.

Yeah, I believe the democrats have enacted strict gun laws there.

KK

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: KK

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
I heard Bush also made the economy tank early in his term, then he pushed the anti-recession button so that the economy will swing back towards the end of the term...

This way he can win the election with a majority of the votes this time.

Bush it doing a whole lot better terrorist-stomping than any democrat could do, if only he would give us back our civil rights!!

what civil rights did he take away? i am still able to speak freely, i have my right to privacy, i can still own a gun.

You just haven't been affected personally yet, give it time.

You have a gun? You obviously don't live in California or New York then.

Yeah, I believe the democrats have enacted strict gun laws there.

KK

It's funny how the Constitution doesn't seem to apply when it comes to gun legislation, and yet so many people get up-in-arms about the Patriot Act infringing on their rights...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: AEB
OK first off we hate the commies remember? Oh yeah, I forgot. This makes it ok. Our government has been trying to overthrow castro for years. ANd what terrorisim is, is actually subjective. What's your definition? And please be sure to list the murder's, and worse criminals that clinton pardoned before he left office. why? I think he set some kind of record.
Im tired of this politics crap. Me too. I wish people would stop bringing up Clinton in a Bush thread. Bush is slowing if not stopping (stopping?) terrorisim across the globe, hes going after osama, because clinton wouldn't That's the reason? and as we all know he overthrew saddam. We are currently working peacefully(per the complaining from the left) on the situation in N korea. No one made a big deal about the blocking of the judges in the senate,This is relevant why? My wife's last apple pie turned out like sh!t, nobody made a big deal about it. <---that's about as relevant to this thread as your judges statement. whats the use the american public is so misinformed.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why do we hate the commies again?

We don't hate the commies. They are just the antipode of everything America stands for.

So if something is different than America, that's a bad thing? Something to be stopped?

Where did I say it was bad or had to be stopped? That's right, I didn't. I guess this is just your usual attack on things I don't write.

Oh? Where did I say you said anything? I simply asked. I trust you've been asked questions before - you know those sentences with the little curly symbols at the end? Don't be such an asshat, fool.

what do you expect from someone with a link to rush on their webpage.

I'm glad you enjoyed the site. I will be updating it soon, and I'm sure it will be right up your alley. I was thinking of having a a flash intro as a tribute to Rush... you know, with stars and stripes, some patriotic music, and of course lots of Rush quotes. After all, since I have link to his site, I must be a Rush-loving, neo-con dittohead.

[/quote]

Why do you have links to Rush and Hannity, Dan? You seem to get defensive everytime someone mentions the fact that your website has links to them. Why?

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why do we hate the commies again?

We don't hate the commies. They are just the antipode of everything America stands for.

So if something is different than America, that's a bad thing? Something to be stopped?

Where did I say it was bad or had to be stopped? That's right, I didn't. I guess this is just your usual attack on things I don't write.

Oh? Where did I say you said anything? I simply asked. I trust you've been asked questions before - you know those sentences with the little curly symbols at the end? Don't be such an asshat, fool.

what do you expect from someone with a link to rush on their webpage.

I'm glad you enjoyed the site. I will be updating it soon, and I'm sure it will be right up your alley. I was thinking of having a a flash intro as a tribute to Rush... you know, with stars and stripes, some patriotic music, and of course lots of Rush quotes. After all, since I have link to his site, I must be a Rush-loving, neo-con dittohead.

[/quote]

Do you even have basic understanding of the english language ?

I never said I enjoyed your site.

If you dont enjoy Rush then why do you have links to his website?

Well the only reason I can think of is that you are on drugs also and you look at him as a "druggie hero".

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet If the info on those web sites is true that guy has been protected by a lot of people/admins., not just Bush's.

So, you believe all the web content you read? k...

How exactly does what I wrote there lead you to believe that I believe all the web content I read?

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: VioletAura

Military officials believe one helicopter may have climbed to avoid gunfire and collided with a second Black Hawk, causing them both to crash.

If this is the case, then this cloud may have a silver lining for the US... they can follow the sounds of hysterical laughter to the insurgents who fired on the helicopter.

VioletAura, you are the pefect example of what is wrong with this world. America, despite its flaws, will always be better and smarter than whatever piss-poor country you are from. I have nothing more to say, you bastard (yes, you are eliciting an emotional response from me, which is quite rare indeed).

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why do we hate the commies again?

We don't hate the commies. They are just the antipode of everything America stands for.

So if something is different than America, that's a bad thing? Something to be stopped?

Where did I say it was bad or had to be stopped? That's right, I didn't. I guess this is just your usual attack on things I don't write.

There is nothing wrong w/ VioletAura considering his argument was very valid, and you couldn't even attempt to refute it other than saying there's something wrong w/ him. get a life.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
If the info on those web sites is true that guy has been protected by a lot of people/admins., not just Bush's.

Really? Were those other admins engaging in an AGGRESSIVE war on terror where they held certain countries to a double standard?

bleh...you terrorist apologist. hahahaha i love how the tables turned. conservatives will bend and twist their beliefs so long as it makes the US appear better. you people have problems.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet If the info on those web sites is true that guy has been protected by a lot of people/admins., not just Bush's.

Really? Were those other admins engaging in an AGGRESSIVE war on terror where they held certain countries to a double standard? bleh...you terrorist apologist. hahahaha i love how the tables turned. conservatives will bend and twist their beliefs so long as it makes the US appear better. you people have problems.

WTF are you talking about? Do you have any clue at all or is this just one more low SNR post by YACS? The point is that if the guy is gulty of what the website alleges he has been in this country a long time, through several admins. not just Bush's. Do you get it now?

For someone who is constantly running his mouth about how stupid Americans are you don't appear to even have enough intelligence to comprehend simple English. Next time I post I'll use more one syllable words. Maybe your trio of functioning neurons won't go into overload.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet If the info on those web sites is true that guy has been protected by a lot of people/admins., not just Bush's.

Really? Were those other admins engaging in an AGGRESSIVE war on terror where they held certain countries to a double standard? bleh...you terrorist apologist. hahahaha i love how the tables turned. conservatives will bend and twist their beliefs so long as it makes the US appear better. you people have problems.

WTF are you talking about? Do you have any clue at all or is this just one more low SNR post by YACS? The point is that if the guy is gulty of what the website alleges he has been in this country a long time, through several admins. not just Bush's. Do you get it now?

For someone who is constantly running his mouth about how stupid Americans are you don't appear to even have enough intelligence to comprehend simple English. Next time I post I'll use more one syllable words. Maybe your trio of functioning neurons won't go into overload.

haha that was funny.

look up to your original post, and notice how you made it apparent to everyone that again, allowing Orlando to walk around free was not only under Bush's reign. You conveniently disregard the fact that Bush was the only one "actively" fighting terrorism. Get it? next time i'll try to elaborate since you don't seem to have much ability to reason.


edit: and i remember it was you...or maybe someone else? it doesn't really make a difference - texas - tennessee - same sh!t - that kept throwing the word hypocrite around. I guess this makes BUSH a hypocrite.

 

[UltraQuiet]

So it's your contention that no other admin. has actively fought terrorism? Not Clinton, Bush Sr., etc.? OK, you're right.

It seems I have seriously underestimated your lack of intelligence. It won't happen again.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So it's your contention that no other admin. has actively fought terrorism? Not Clinton, Bush Sr., etc.? OK, you're right.

It seems I have seriously underestimated your lack of intelligence. It won't happen again.

i don't recall Clinton ever invading countries because they "harbored terrorists"

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Pers

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
So it's your contention that no other admin. has actively fought terrorism? Not Clinton, Bush Sr., etc.? OK, you're right.

It seems I have seriously underestimated your lack of intelligence. It won't happen again.

i don't recall Clinton ever invading countries because they "harbored terrorists"

Neither do I. What's the point, that Clinton ignored the first WTC attacks, USS Cole, embassy attacks, etc.? Do you have a point or are you just purposely being obtuse because in all reality you're nothing but a troll?

Sorry I almost forgot who I was talking to:

ob·tuse ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-ts, -tys, b-)
adj. ob·tus·er, ob·tus·est

a. Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.
b. Characterized by a lack of intelligence or sensitivity: an obtuse remark.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: VioletAura

Reich also served as US ambassador to Venezuela and was alleged to have used his influence to try and get a US visa for a convicted terrorist, Orlando Bosch, jailed in Venezuela in 1976 for the bombing of a Cubana airliner with 73 people on board.

"MIAMI, Feb 16, (AP) - Orlando Bosch, a symbol of anti-Castro militancy in the 1960's and 70's, returned from Venezuela today after his third acquittal on charges of planning an explosion aboard a Cuban jetliner in 1976 that killed 73 people."

[....]

"Dr. Bosch was found not guilty of the bombing charges for a third time on Aug. 7...."

SOURCE: New York Times, February 17, 1988, page A6

 

[LunarRay]

I guess there are a few ways to deal with terrorists and depending on where they may reside one way may be better than another. However, the Irish question was dealt with by Clinton by bringing Jerry Adams (Sinn Fein) to the US when other administrations refused on the basis that he was a terrorist. The Irish question has moderated to a workable problem and I'd venture there is no greater 'religious difference' than in that tiny country.
So we should recognize the players and try to engage them in a dialog that will result in changes for all parties. I'm not just speaking of OML or the Palestinian terror folks but, anyone who seeks to invoke terror to push their minority agenda. If they can't be satisfied then the world may unite against them and they will have not a place to hide and eventually with out that kind of support will cease to exist.
IMO!

 

[DealMonkey]

I guess one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That old cliche rings true when the terrorist in question happens to be fighting against our "enemy." Once again the ends justify the means and the U.S. only looks like more of a hypocrite than ever. I wonder, would we also support terrorists whose target happened to be Islamic extremists? Bombing their buildings and mowing down their followers with AKs in the Mosques?

Are we only appalled by terrorism because of the target and not the methods?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I guess one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. That old cliche rings true when the terrorist in question happens to be fighting against our "enemy." Once again the ends justify the means and the U.S. only looks like more of a hypocrite than ever. I wonder, would we also support terrorists whose target happened to be Islamic extremists? Bombing their buildings and mowing down their followers with AKs in the Mosques?

Are we only appalled by terrorism because of the target and not the methods?

If you define "Terrorism" as: The systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments, (a definition of the noun use of the word) then I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you. In fact, based on that definition just about anything war like is terrorism. I'd agree as well if you define it as an adjective.

I guess we say the use of little bombs is terrorism and the use of MOAB's is peace keeping. Targets are secondary to methods depending on where you are at the time of the explosion.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Why do we hate the commies again?

We don't hate the commies. They are just the antipode of everything America stands for.

So if something is different than America, that's a bad thing? Something to be stopped?

Where did I say it was bad or had to be stopped? That's right, I didn't. I guess this is just your usual attack on things I don't write.

Oh? Where did I say you said anything? I simply asked. I trust you've been asked questions before - you know those sentences with the little curly symbols at the end? Don't be such an asshat, fool.

what do you expect from someone with a link to rush on their webpage.

I'm glad you enjoyed the site. I will be updating it soon, and I'm sure it will be right up your alley. I was thinking of having a a flash intro as a tribute to Rush... you know, with stars and stripes, some patriotic music, and of course lots of Rush quotes. After all, since I have link to his site, I must be a Rush-loving, neo-con dittohead.

Why do you have links to Rush and Hannity, Dan? You seem to get defensive everytime someone mentions the fact that your website has links to them. Why?[/quote]

First, my name isn't Dan... I don't go around calling you "Gaa". Why do I have links to Rush and Hannity? Quite simple, I like Rush's website, and I love Hannity's radio show. Rush provides more links to valid sources than any other host. I don't agree with them all, but it provides good information when I need to reseach something. And, quit frankly, Sean Hannity is just entertaining.

Why do I get "defensive"? Probably because of the snide comments that are made because of my links... it doesn't bother me, but I have every right to "defend" myself when others write things such as "what do you expect from someone with a link to rush on their webpage."

I thought you would be smart enough to figure that one out, Gaard...

As for my response to VioletAura, he is a classic America hater that enjoys nothing more than to see our troops failing (and dieing) in Iraq. I refuse to waste my time discussing things with him, especially when he posts comments like:

"If this is the case, then this cloud may have a silver lining for the US... they can follow the sounds of hysterical laughter to the insurgents who fired on the helicopter."

I'm suprised that all Americans aren't offended by this sort of Anti-American rhetoric. Then again, nothing really surprises me anymore.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Ultra Quiet-

What's the point, that Clinton ignored the first WTC attacks, USS Cole, embassy attacks, etc.?

That's not true at all. The perps of the first wtc attack are never getting out of the joint. Clinton sicced the CIA on Bin Laden, and our allies' intelligence services pitched in, as well. There were a few cruise missiles tossed around, as well, iirc.

Probably a lot of other under the surface kind of stuff, too. When Bush took office, his team basically decided that the Clintonites were obsessed with OBL, and directed their efforts elsewhere....

Our support of terrorism is long standing and still continues. The Contras are a good example, as are present day right wing paramilitaries in Colombia and other parts of the hemisphere, all financed on the American plan...

When they're working with our money, they're freedom fighters, when they're on the other side, they're obviously terrorists...

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From Ultra Quiet-

What's the point, that Clinton ignored the first WTC attacks, USS Cole, embassy attacks, etc.?

That's not true at all. The perps of the first wtc attack are never getting out of the joint. Clinton sicced the CIA on Bin Laden, and our allies' intelligence services pitched in, as well. There were a few cruise missiles tossed around, as well, iirc.

Probably a lot of other under the surface kind of stuff, too. When Bush took office, his team basically decided that the Clintonites were obsessed with OBL, and directed their efforts elsewhere....

Our support of terrorism is long standing and still continues. The Contras are a good example, as are present day right wing paramilitaries in Colombia and other parts of the hemisphere, all financed on the American plan...

When they're working with our money, they're freedom fighters, when they're on the other side, they're obviously terrorists...

All of which is true, more or less, but I would say that the previous admin. didn't really show much "obsession" with OBL. It's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make anyway which is that if Bosch is under some sort of "protection" in this country it is certainly been under more than one admin. No blame, no finger pointing, no defending it, just an observation of the timeline.

 

[t3h1337guy]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU?!?! CAN YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS TRUE DO YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO OMG I CANT BELIEVE HOW DUMB PEOPLE CAN BE

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: t3h1337guy
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ALL OF YOU?!?! CAN YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS TRUE DO YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO OMG I CANT BELIEVE HOW DUMB PEOPLE CAN BE

Which part do you have a problem with? The 'protects' part? We gave him asylum. The 'terrorist' part? A previous post indicated some events maybe that is not a terrorist behavior.. Or is it 'for the votes' that you have a problem with linking the other two parts to 'win votes'. I think everything a politician does considers the political gain or loss.

 

[TearsofScarlet]

All of which is true, more or less, but I would say that the previous admin. didn't really show much "obsession" with OBL. It's irrelevant to the point I was trying to make anyway which is that if Bosch is under some sort of "protection" in this country it is certainly been under more than one admin. No blame, no finger pointing, no defending it, just an observation of the timeline.

I see your point, clinton was in office for 8 years and didn't do a thing to this person, but maybe he couldn't. I maybe wrong here, but I don't think presidential pardons can be revoked.

 

[PainTrain]

Which could also explain Bush's lack of involvement, in all fairness. I still think he's an !@#hole.