cyclohexane
Platinum Member
- Feb 12, 2005
- 2,837
- 19
- 81
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
why am I not surprised to hear this from loser111...
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
Originally posted by: KDOG
I guess I have to spell it out. My personal beliefs are that Obama and his team (I mean c'mon - Hillary? Biden? pffft!) will be ultra-weak and wimpy in the face of a large attack. I see them going hat in hand to our enemies begging for mercy and giving them what they want. Yes, they haven't spent a day in office, but thats what I think of them. 'nuff said.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: KDOG
I guess I have to spell it out. My personal beliefs are that Obama and his team (I mean c'mon - Hillary? Biden? pffft!) will be ultra-weak and wimpy in the face of a large attack. I see them going hat in hand to our enemies begging for mercy and giving them what they want. Yes, they haven't spent a day in office, but thats what I think of them. 'nuff said.
I doubt Obama will risk going down as a pussy when it comes to War and fighting terrorism. Yea he campaigned as a anti-war candidate, but he did that to just get the sheeple's votes. He will probably be a bigger hawk than W, the difference is, he'll talk one way and act another.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
The election is over, superfly...save your slime material for 2012...God knows you people will need it.
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
So the president is responsible when the US gets attacked then. Gotcha, though I don't agree with you. Bush was not at all responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Hell, only a scant handful of hard left leaning posters here would agree with you on that. Welcome to that exclusive club. You have become what you despise. Congrats.
Originally posted by: fleshconsumed
Two words: fear mongering.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
The election is over, superfly...save your slime material for 2012...God knows you people will need it.
If and when this attack happens, it won't be slime material. It'll be front page news, as everyone asks what George W. Bush did right from 2002-2008.
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: winnar111
The coming Obama Presidency certainly makes this likely.
So the president is responsible when the US gets attacked then. Gotcha, though I don't agree with you. Bush was not at all responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Hell, only a scant handful of hard left leaning posters here would agree with you on that. Welcome to that exclusive club. You have become what you despise. Congrats.
India's security minister resigned as a result of the Mumbai bombings. That certainly seems to be the standard.
The difference between 2001 and 2009 is that Bush has established intelligence and detention programs for the purpose of locating and killing radical Islam. If Obama chooses to dismantle them he does so at our peril.
Originally posted by: CitizenKain
Not surprised to see the usual group on here fear mongering and hoping for a terrorist attack to prove that they are right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
You don't stop terrorism with violence and brute force. You have to get to the root of the problem, and this is something Bush and his cronies never understood.
Originally posted by: KDOG
I guess I have to spell it out. My personal beliefs are that Obama and his team (I mean c'mon - Hillary? Biden? pffft!) will be ultra-weak and wimpy in the face of a large attack. I see them going hat in hand to our enemies begging for mercy and giving them what they want. Yes, they haven't spent a day in office, but thats what I think of them. 'nuff said.
Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's faultOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.
Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".
Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?
The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.
Originally posted by: alchemize
Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's faultOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.
Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".
Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?
The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: alchemize
Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's faultOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.
Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".
Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?
The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.
Do you think that?
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: alchemize
Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's faultOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.
Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".
Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?
The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.
Do you think that?
If he had gone after Bin Laden instead of wagging the dog from his cigar-capades with a couple cruise-missles on his camps, 9/11 may not have ever happened. A spectacular attack would have happened at some point, but not 9/11.
Originally posted by: Evan
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: LumbergTech
Originally posted by: alchemize
Then clearly by your logic 9/11 was clinton's faultOriginally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: KDOG
I wonder if we'll be able to blame Obama for it like everyone blames Bush for everything.
Him and his jerk-off administration will probably want to negotiate with the terrorist and make concessions for supposed "peace".
Anyway, whats your thoughts on the impending doom?
The "impending doom" was brought on by your hero Bush, not Obama.
Do you think that?
If he had gone after Bin Laden instead of wagging the dog from his cigar-capades with a couple cruise-missles on his camps, 9/11 may not have ever happened. A spectacular attack would have happened at some point, but not 9/11.
This is deliciously moronic. rofl. `
Originally posted by: Ocguy31
Originally posted by: Evan
This is deliciously moronic. rofl. `
Way to poke holes in my argument. A+ for effort.