Giuliani - Shut The F' Up!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
Prof X

No I don’t. My feeling is that if the govt. is looking into something there is probably something to it. I don’t know what it is but I don’t think they look at things like terrorism to waste time. I am sure my perspective is different.

No one said they are “wasting time”. It is being said that there is an apparent agenda that doesn’t just include terrorism. Beyond that, this comment by you: How far will it go? I don’t know I guess until the problem goes away. is ridiculous. Terror is a concept, much like an idea. It will never “go away”. It is like having a war on rape. There will always be rapists just like there will always be criminals. It is a little like thinking robberies will eventually go away or that fighting will eventually go away. People who think like you are the ones who openly allow more and more rights to be taken away, if for no other reason than you actually trust those in power to a ridiculous degree. [/quote]

Professor

So what does someone who is a rape victim do? accept it because it will “always be there”. Wrong. You fight. Some people allow evil to occur, as you advocate, because it will always be there. Others don’t.

Fortunately we live in a country that allows both opinions.

Considering your employer I would assume you would put more faith in the govt. I qurstioned the Army all the time but when push comes to shove it was their way or the highway.

Let’s roll this forward. Terrorists attack the drug supply, we had the intel. We do nothing. You and the rest of the anti’s would bash the administration more then ever.

It’s a no win situation so why cater to the detractors.

42

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Prof

Nice try…try again. That’s far from the only logical conclusion. It’s an opinion. Clearly yours is different. If you have good intel, a good reasona nd the capability then you go. The opinion of your psuedo allies not withstanding.

Future Dave,

No it’s not Condi. Are you Al Franken? You seem to mimic a lot of what he and the rest of the ABB’ers have to say. Got anything original?

Hedo, you just got schooled—plus that’s not Franken it’s the 9/11 commission. How many reports did the admin get before 9/11 plus the PDB of Aug. 6 leading to how many meetings on terror (hint- ZERO)

you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.

100, In your dreams. Grow up dude. You and your puny kind would not have supported squat if it hadn’t of been for 9/11. That would require you to face facts and your own shortcomings. We both know that will never happen don’t we.

Bet you a couple of thousand terrorists don’t think he sat on his hands. That’s reality not rhetoric. That’s a schooling son.

Prof

Conservatives support the country in time of war. They don’t wish for bad things to happen so they can be proven correct. At least the ones I know.

I don’t know if that describes you or not but let’s face you guys bitch a lot about everything. At some point even a blind squirel finds a nut…unless it’s a lefty I guess.

Conspiracy is not around every corner. Why don’t you two try and have a positive thought now and then. Perhaps work for a candidate that has an idea instead of a complaint. Yes that is the difficult way to do things but it could happen.

You naturally ignored how many warnings (Intel) vs. how many meetings(action). I don’t blame you, because Bush was clueless/ or worse uninterested on the war on terror pre 9/11.

Bet you a couple of thousand terrorists don’t think he sat on his hands.

Uhmm… The ones that matter (Osama bin Laden) are still taunting Bush for sitting on his hands, and I’m sure the ones that killed 3000 americans thank allah for Bush sitting on his hands.

You and your puny kind would not have supported squat if it hadn’t of been for 9/11.

That’s funny because:

Clinton did at least do something though certainly he could have done more.
Bush did NOTHING. He actually supported the “Squat” you talked about. You did read the (bi-partisan) 9/11 commission’s report that the president flip-flopped on right Hedo? I’m guessing you listened to the report via Rush based on your disinformation.

My favorite:

“That would require you to face facts and your own shortcomings.”

Lordy the irony!

[/quote]

Blah Blah Blah.

Thankfully your not in charge of actually doin something son. We would still be debating the politcally correct way not to offend our Muslim friends.

You are truly getting old. It’s like arguing with a chick. You never get it and you are always basing your point on something you and only other chicks understand.

Now that’s irony.

43

[quote]hedo wrote:
Blah Blah Blah.

Thankfully your not in charge of actually doin something son. We would still be debating the politcally correct way not to offend our Muslim friends.

You are truly getting old. It’s like arguing with a chick. You never get it and you are always basing your point on something you and other chicks understand.

Now that’s irony.
[/quote]

Thankfully I’m not in charge, yes I agree I’ve none of the skills to lead the country, I’m a terrible leader I’m afaid, but alas If you or I were the president and we got a 54 warnings from the FAA or PDB screaming of osamas desire to attack, I feel certain either one of us would scramble to consult with experts in our administrations…It’s strange that you can’t just admit Bush should have too.

44

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters, you are absolutely right.

Bush should have invaded Afghanistan in February 2001 to catch Bin Laden.

Bin Laden already attacked the WTC once during the Clinton years. It was already open season on Bin Laden.

Clinton tried to let the courts round up his guys and of course he shot a cruise missle at Bin Laden during the silly Monicagate fiasco. While the efforts were a bit lackluster at least it was something.

Bush should have tried to one up his efforts and come into office with his guns blazing. After all that is what Al Gore would have done!

100meters, perhaps you should turn your keen eye for government ineptitude to the other side of the aisle once in a while for some perspective. It gets tiresome to see you post the same things over and over again.
[/quote]

Zap,
I’m assuming you haven’t read the 9/11 commission’s report—It’ll give you some background on the ineptitude (in varying degrees) of both admins. I forgot that Bush did do something in regards to Richard Clark’s demands to do something—he cancelled predator drone flights over afghanistan. And Bush did afterall downgrade terrorism which…basically…means…oh Zap, it stinks to support a guy that makes a career of getting it wrong!

45

[quote]hedo wrote:

Professor

So what does someone who is a rape victim do? accept it because it will “always be there”. Wrong. You fight. Some people allow evil to occur, as you advocate, because it will always be there. Others don’t.
.[/quote]

This was weak. Allow me to show you why. Yes, evil is present in the world and the good are left with the task of fighting it, dealing with it and avoiding it. However, the moment that woman who was raped decides that ALL MEN on the planet should be castrated just in case there is a risk of one being a rapist, the good have crossed the lines and suddenly, like old cowboy westerns, thrown on all black garments. That is about the same as us running after every witch hunt that, for some strange reason, seems to support big business in the largest way at the expense of the general populace. I find it hard to believe that you even think that terrorists are about to set up some pharmacies in Canada. It smells like propaganda in here.

46

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:

Professor

So what does someone who is a rape victim do? accept it because it will “always be there”. Wrong. You fight. Some people allow evil to occur, as you advocate, because it will always be there. Others don’t.
.

This was weak. Allow me to show you why. Yes, evil is present in the world and the good are left with the task of fighting it, dealing with it and avoiding it. However, the moment that woman who was raped decides that ALL MEN on the planet should be castrated just in case there is a risk of one being a rapist, the good have crossed the lines and suddenly, like old cowboy westerns, thrown on all black garments. That is about the same as us running after every witch hunt that, for some strange reason, seems to support big business in the largest way at the expense of the general populace. I find it hard to believe that you even think that terrorists are about to set up some pharmacies in Canada. It smells like propaganda in here.[/quote]

Actually professor I was responding to your statement comments. You didn’t give me much to work with.

Terrorists crashing planes into buildings, including the Pentagon!! No way could never happen…right? Were safe don’t worry about it…right?

No propoganda just a good idea but that’s my opinion. You can’t make the argument to do nothing…with exceptions. I don’t buy it.

47

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Blah Blah Blah.

Thankfully your not in charge of actually doin something son. We would still be debating the politcally correct way not to offend our Muslim friends.

You are truly getting old. It’s like arguing with a chick. You never get it and you are always basing your point on something you and other chicks understand.

Now that’s irony.

Thankfully I’m not in charge, yes I agree I’ve none of the skills to lead the country, I’m a terrible leader I’m afaid, but alas If you or I were the president and we got a 54 warnings from the FAA or PDB screaming of osamas desire to attack, I feel certain either one of us would scramble to consult with experts in our administrations…It’s strange that you can’t just admit Bush should have too. [/quote]

I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.

What I can’t agree with is the fact that you ignore all the other facts and pick and choose which ones to use.

Terrorists sending drugs from Canada. Obviously we’ve been warned or have a suspicion. Yet many lefties say do nothing? It’s ridiculous? Who knows. I don’t. It sounds as far out as Terr’s crashing commercial airliners into buildings in a coordinated attack.

And as to the 3000 terrorists. I don’t know if that’s the right number. It may be. Guess what Osama didn’t fly the planes. If you kill the troops the commander has nobody left to make the attack. Bush is killing the body…the head will come soon enough.

I think it would be simplistic to believe that the death of all those terrorists has not prevented attacks. whether Bush or Clinton or whoever was responsible for the action. You can’t blame Bush and then not give him credit. Too me…when the Abb’ers do that it kills their credibility.

48

[quote]The report, which was commissioned by drug companies that lose big profits on the cheaper imports, noted Canadian Internet pharmacies are filling U.S. prescriptions with medicines from foreign countries and counterfeit drug cases are rising.
[/quote]

I think Pro X’s point is lost on some of you. There “could” be a hidden agenda, not a fact, but it is possible. There “may” be a reason we should all be a little more concerned that this administration’s agenda my not be in the best interest of the citizens.

If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and if you step in it - feels like shit then it probably is. So far it has the look and smell.

I would imagine the Bush administration would have a hard time dealing with the American Association of Retired People over this one.

So who has more power the AARP (votes), or drug companies (money)?

49

[quote]hedo wrote:
Actually professor I was responding to your statement comments. You didn’t give me much to work with.

Terrorists crashing planes into buildings, including the Pentagon!! No way could never happen…right? Were safe don’t worry about it…right?

No propoganda just a good idea but that’s my opinion. You can’t make the argument to do nothing…with exceptions. I don’t buy it.

[/quote]

A threat of an attack is not the same as them spreading the belief that terrorists are trying to SET UP BUSINESSES FOR THE SOUL PURPOSE OF GIVING BAD DRUGS TO SICK PEOPLE. Again I ask, do you truly believe this?

50

[quote]hedo wrote:
I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.[/quote]

OK, so when it is proven that Bush sat around and ignored warnings, it is time to move past it. Why, then, does Clinton’s name get thrown around so much by conservatives blaming him for the same thing even though it has been nearly six years since his presidency?

51

[quote]100meters wrote:

you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.[/quote]

you are such a lying sack of shit it’s not funny anymore.

52

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

What I can’t agree with is the fact that you ignore all the other facts and pick and choose which ones to use.

[/quote]

He isn’t the one calling the shots or actually picking the facts. The current administration is.

That is why we should really be concerned.

53

[quote]hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
Blah Blah Blah.

Thankfully your not in charge of actually doin something son. We would still be debating the politcally correct way not to offend our Muslim friends.

You are truly getting old. It’s like arguing with a chick. You never get it and you are always basing your point on something you and other chicks understand.

Now that’s irony.

Thankfully I’m not in charge, yes I agree I’ve none of the skills to lead the country, I’m a terrible leader I’m afaid, but alas If you or I were the president and we got a 54 warnings from the FAA or PDB screaming of osamas desire to attack, I feel certain either one of us would scramble to consult with experts in our administrations…It’s strange that you can’t just admit Bush should have too.

I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.

What I can’t agree with is the fact that you ignore all the other facts and pick and choose which ones to use.

Terrorists sending drugs from Canada. Obviously we’ve been warned or have a suspicion. Yet many lefties say do nothing? It’s ridiculous? Who knows. I don’t. It sounds as far out as Terr’s crashing commercial airliners into buildings in a coordinated attack.

And as to the 3000 terrorists. I don’t know if that’s the right number. It may be. Guess what Osama didn’t fly the planes. If you kill the troops the commander has nobody left to make the attack. Bush is killing the body…the head will come soon enough.

I think it would be simplistic to believe that the death of all those terrorists has not prevented attacks. whether Bush or Clinton or whoever was responsible for the action. You can’t blame Bush and then not give him credit. Too me…when the Abb’ers do that it kills their credibility.

[/quote]

No question it would be simplistic! I would never,ever claim that a thousand meetings would have changed anything, its the concern I would have appreciated. And I give Bush ALL the credit for the current situation in Iraq, good and bad.

54

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:

you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.

you are such a lying sack of shit it’s not funny anymore.
[/quote]

The 9/11 commission lied to me?
Joe, it would really, really help if before you made attacks on people’s truthfulness, if you’d investigate the information I’m basing my “facts” on.
While you may consider Bush’s downgrading of terrorism as a priority pre-9/11 an example of Bush springing into action, I feel its more in line with my “sat on his hands” metaphor.
Anyway back to the topic at hand…

55

[quote]100meters wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
100meters wrote:

you said: “You go on the info you have”
Your guy sat on his hands.

you are such a lying sack of shit it’s not funny anymore.

The 9/11 commission lied to me?
Joe, it would really, really help if before you made attacks on people’s truthfulness, if you’d investigate the information I’m basing my “facts” on.
While you may consider Bush’s downgrading of terrorism as a priority pre-9/11 an example of Bush springing into action, I feel its more in line with my “sat on his hands” metaphor.
Anyway back to the topic at hand…

[/quote]

lying as in making things up as you admitted you do in another thread.
As in ducking my question while continuing your little left wing hate fest.

56

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.

OK, so when it is proven that Bush sat around and ignored warnings, it is time to move past it. Why, then, does Clinton’s name get thrown around so much by conservatives blaming him for the same thing even though it has been nearly six years since his presidency? [/quote]

Proven?

Because Bush wasn’t offered binLaden on a silver platter, Clinton was and refused?
Because Clinton refused to strike back at the terrorists, emboldening them?
Because Clinton was more concerned with getting his knob polished by the fat intern and playing hide the cigar than in discharging his duty?

ProfX, it’s nice to have you back.
Until you came back there was only 100meters to wave the lib nutjob flag.

57

[quote]100meters wrote:
The 9/11 commission lied to me?
[/quote]

actually, the 9/11 commission was nothing but a partisan cover up. If they’d been interested in the truth Jamie Gore-lick would’ve been forced off and turned into a witness.
Etc.

58

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.

OK, so when it is proven that Bush sat around and ignored warnings, it is time to move past it. Why, then, does Clinton’s name get thrown around so much by conservatives blaming him for the same thing even though it has been nearly six years since his presidency?

Proven?

Because Bush wasn’t offered binLaden on a silver platter, Clinton was and refused?
Because Clinton refused to strike back at the terrorists, emboldening them?
Because Clinton was more concerned with getting his knob polished by the fat intern and playing hide the cigar than in discharging his duty?
[/quote]

Let’s all make a list of how many positives have come from the war in Iraq happening when it did…here in this country alone. It can be sort of like a pros vs cons look at what has actually been accomplished.

59

[quote]Professor X wrote:
hedo wrote:
I wish Bush and others reacted to those signs earlier too. I will agree with you on that. they didn’t. Now we need to move forward not rehash, endlessly the past. We learned our lesson. It won’t happen again.

OK, so when it is proven that Bush sat around and ignored warnings, it is time to move past it. Why, then, does Clinton’s name get thrown around so much by conservatives blaming him for the same thing even though it has been nearly six years since his presidency? [/quote]

I don’t know, perhaps he was that inept and felt he should leave the difficult work to someone else?

60

[quote]beerbarbq wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:

What I can’t agree with is the fact that you ignore all the other facts and pick and choose which ones to use.

He isn’t the one calling the shots or actually picking the facts. The current administration is.

That is why we should really be concerned.
[/quote]

about what being proactive?

Good good what should we do form a committee to debate it some more and make sure it is all inclusive and politically correct. That time is passed.