Slam Obama (merged)

[Rockin Robbins]

Sheesh folks, let's agree to a couple of things. Let me toss 'em out one by one:

Bush is no conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Bush is no leader. Ronald Reagan was a leader, who commanded the respect of those who did not agree with him. What Bush does does not reflect on conservatives at all, or conservatism.

President Clinton was the best Republican he could be for six years. His whole presidency after 1994 was based on finding out what the Republicans wanted and doing it first. Although liberal by inclination, Clinton was an opportunist, who chose his actions by ease of accomplishment and estimated amount of popular acclaim that would result. Were Clinton president on September 11, 2001, he would have done exactly what President Bush did, including the war in Iraq, and for the same reasons.

Actually, both Bushes and Clinton were identical types of president. They would say they had a position, walk into a meeting and say, "but who cares what I think, let's make a deal." The only area where HW Bush showed any leadership was the war against terrorism and Iraq, and he was unable to explain satisfactorily why he did the right thing. That yields the same result as doing the wrong thing.

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

Whoa there chief, you really need to go get some air, I'm not kidding. Go on a date, play with a cat or something. The terrorists don't have nukes. Only in paranoid fantasy Rush Limbaugh land do sand dwellers go from RPGs and Ak-47s to nukes. It just doesn't work that way.

Your fear mongering is off the charts.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

The terrorists don't have nukes.

If you liberals have your way...they will eventually.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

If you liberals have your way...they will eventually.

*rolls eyes

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

*rolls eyes

This is why you liberals aren't fit to run this country. I'm sure Obama is rolling his eyes to the threats America faces in the future as well.

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

This is why you liberals aren't fit to run this country. I'm sure Obama is rolling his eyes to the threats America faces in the future as well.

I hate to tell you this, but republicans don't have a monopoly on the military. I was in the army. I met many liberals. They were mostly special forces, SEALs, etc. The run of the mill dumb grunt and truck driver is usually a right winger though. No surprise there.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Flamingboat

I hate to tell you this, but republicans don't have a monopoly on the military. I was in the army. I met many liberals. They were mostly special forces, SEALs, etc. The run of the mill dumb grunt and truck driver is usually a right winger though. No surprise there.

I was in the USAF. And deployed in joint operations. While raw politics was never really discussed, it was obvious to me most would be Republican as voters. I doubt you ever served in the military. Or if you did, you got a dishonorable discharge with the work ethic you describe yourself as having. I know three people who used to be in Army special forces and they are just as horrified of the Democrat Party as I am.

[mrbeast]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Sheesh folks, let's agree to a couple of things. Let me toss 'em out one by one:

Bush is no conservative. Ronald Reagan was a conservative. Bush is no leader. Ronald Reagan was a leader, who commanded the respect of those who did not agree with him. What Bush does does not reflect on conservatives at all, or conservatism.

President Clinton was the best Republican he could be for six years. His whole presidency after 1994 was based on finding out what the Republicans wanted and doing it first. Although liberal by inclination, Clinton was an opportunist, who chose his actions by ease of accomplishment and estimated amount of popular acclaim that would result. Were Clinton president on September 11, 2001, he would have done exactly what President Bush did, including the war in Iraq, and for the same reasons.

Actually, both Bushes and Clinton were identical types of president. They would say they had a position, walk into a meeting and say, "but who cares what I think, let's make a deal." The only area where HW Bush showed any leadership was the war against terrorism and Iraq, and he was unable to explain satisfactorily why he did the right thing. That yields the same result as doing the wrong thing.

I am a conservative, but conservatives are making a grave mistake by calling liberals a bunch of pansies. If Obama is elected president (and I predict he will, God help us) and if he pulls out of Iraq (I believe he won't, among lots of other things he won't) our army will have a shadow when it returns and the shadow will gleefully switch from fighting trained and well-armed volunteers in their part of the world to killing defenseless civilians in our country. I would give 50% odds that within a couple of years of our return we will wake up to a large northeastern or Californian city being wiped off the face of the earth by a nuclear explosion. Note that it will be a liberal city.

At that point, all the Republicans who think the American liberals are a bunch of pansies will learn that they are wrong. The liberals are doing nothing more than giving the militant Islamic terrorists one last chance. Their reaction to the inevitable payback for their pullback from the foreign battlefield will be an unrestrained attack of unbridled fury and death. The war of the Republicans sacrificed American lives to avoid undue civilian carnage and tried to protect the innocent. The liberal backlash will do no such thing. The words "fuel-air bomb" will be literally burnt into your memory for the rest of your life. It will be middle eastern destruction, a war of unimaginable cruelty without regard for life or property, friend or foe. But unlike the Republican patty-cake war, it will work. After all, peace with an implacable enemy only results from resounding, complete victory in war.

You can make friends afterwards with the survivors, if any.

If you think that the war in Iraq was or is 'taking the fight to the enemy' then I think you are bordering on the delusional Rockin Robins.

9/11 was allowed to occurr in part because the Bush administration took its eye off the ball and ignored intelligence reports that Bin Laden was planning an attack on US soil.

Why was Bush's gaze distracted?

Iraq was a Bush target from day 1 of his presidency long before 9/11.

[baggygreen]

You dont think it was more a case of "that sh!t can't happen here", mrbeast?

I personally find it easy to cry incompetence that they missed the signs, christ i said to my dear old mother about a week before how frustrating it was that more wasn't being done as something was in the works. That was simply from wide reading and a gut feeling. Never imagined 9/11 though, obviously.

I think however, they simply didn't think it was possible. People dismissed the fears and intelligence brought to them because lets face it, they all got plenty of warnings and not once did they come true, why should this one?

I don't necessarily believe he was distracted with iraq, i still havent made up my mind fully. I do believe they simply dismissed the warnings out of... a false sense of security.

As for the tower being a conspiracy FB, well you oughta know full well that you dont need to destroy something like a tower's supporting beam, merely weaken it to the point where it can no longer support the weight above it. But lets not go into that in this thread, theres been enough debate about it over the years.

Finally, to put an on-topic comment in here - Like i posted in the other thread about BHO's friends, it'll be interesting to seewhat comes of it all. I can't wait, its like reading a thriller

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by baggygreen

Like i posted in the other thread about BHO's friends, it'll be interesting to seewhat comes of it all. I can't wait, its like reading a thriller

Let's just hope that the thriller's author has a good ending written