2
   

VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

 
 
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:19 pm
VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

"The infidel got his fair treatment."

Do you see what savage bastards we're up against here? Last week Al Qaeda beheaded Paul Johnson Jr. Just like they said they would. Are you listening people? JUST LIKE THEY SAID THEY WOULD. And haven't they said that they were also going to hit us on our own soil again .. this time looking for tens of thousands of American deaths? When will we be saying "just like they said they would" to that threat?

These Islamic menaces have no humanity. Not one ounce. They are cruel, cunning, capable ruthless monsters. I hope there aren't many idiotic Americans who agree with that fool I saw on Hannity and Colmes this week ... the one who said we need to open a dialogue with these monsters and negotiate with them. Yeah .. let's show some weakness. That's what we need.

I want you to think about how much encouragement these bastards get from the appeasement crowd in this country. Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House? Is there any doubt in your mind who they would vote for? Does that person happen to be the same person you're going to vote for?

We're at war, folks. Let's get an official declaration and hit these sons-of-bitches with everything we have .. hit them and every half-assed nation that harbors or supports them.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 8,944 • Replies: 192
No top replies

 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:25 pm
Re: VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS
McGentrix wrote:
Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House? Is there any doubt in your mind who they would vote for? Does that person happen to be the same person you're going to vote for?



The constant attempt to make a "vote for Kerry" seem as a "vote for terrorism" is so f*cking pathetic. I guess you support everything that guy said. You have my sympathy.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:26 pm
Re: VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS
McGentrix wrote:

Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House? Is there any doubt in your mind who they would vote for? Does that person happen to be the same person you're going to vote for?


Al Qaeda has publically endorsed Bush, not Kerry.

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:28 pm
Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:29 pm
Craven's right.

The academic community which studies the middle East, Al-Quaeda in particular, has been saying for over a year that Al-Quaeda wants Bush re-elected in the worst way.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:37 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does.


Well, Boortz seems to think merely claiming they endorse someone should mean people should vote for the other guy.

I was not suggesting you give it any more concideration than it is due, thing is Boortz is trying to make terrorism a matter of political partisanship and he is claiming that the terrorists want Kerry.

They say they want Bush.

Frankly I think both sides are full of it, but the Boortz article makes a plea to vote for Bush for reasons that are very dubitable.

I have a novel idea: how about people use their heads and make up their minds and not worry about who other numbskulls will vote for.

That way those who prefer Bush's policies can vote for him and those who don't can vote for the other dude.

Trying to marry a party to a side on the war on terrorism is silly as the parties are not on different sides on that issue. They merely have very minor differences on how it would be prosecuted (mainly just differences in tone).
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:39 pm
How sad that dialogue is seen as appeasement.
That's the kind of attitude that makes enemies in the first place.

I would be all for killing the ones who want to kill us, and then starting over with the rest on a level playing field with a president who knows how to "play" on one. Hint: it isn't bush.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:41 pm
You honestly feel that Kerry will continue the war on terror? I value your opinions Craven because you tend to be well read on global events.

What has lead you to believe that a Kerry presidancy will be tough on terror? I have yet to hear who his VP will be, much less his SoD. What are his plans? So far, it seems to me that he wants to suck up to the UN instead of continuing the fight. I know what I will get with Bush in office.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:42 pm
Although blowing up a bunch of nations and killing millions does sound like an intelligent, well-thought out plan. Rolling Eyes
I bet the founding fathers can't wait for Kerry to get in there, so they can rest in peace again and stop having to roll over in their graves!
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:42 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does.


But had Al Qaeda publicly said "We hope for a Kerry election, so we may more easily destroy your country", you would be all over that like white on rice, saying how "liberals and Al Qaeda both support the same candidate!".

Admit it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:46 pm
McGentrix wrote:
You honestly feel that Kerry will continue the war on terror?


No, I think that those who are fighting the war on terror will continue to do so Bush and Kerry will continue to have nothing to do with it except issue sound bytes and serve as a symbolic figure.

Quote:
What has lead you to believe that a Kerry presidancy will be tough on terror?


The agencies and entities doing their jobs usually continue to do so regardless of what figurehead is in place.

Kerry is unlikely to issue a "stop going after terrorists" order and those who pursue them are, by my estimation, likely to continue to do so.

The differenece in perception between the two individuals is, IMO, primarily a matter of tone and rhetoric.

I don't think Kerry would not be much different from Bush, the biggest difference would be that bellyaching would be coming from a different political camp.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:49 pm
JustanObserver wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does.


But had Al Qaeda publicly said "We hope for a Kerry election, so we may more easily destroy your country", you would be all over that like white on rice, saying how "liberals and Al Qaeda both support the same candidate!".

Admit it.


Let me try this again so you understand it.

Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:53 pm
The fact that you turn an otherwise readable post into a "don't vote for Kerry" opportunity is ignorant beyond the saying of the word.

I act like a moron on purpose. You seem sincere.

The war on terror will continue, but perhaps with Kerry in office it will take a more intelligent tact.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 02:59 pm
"Just how much do they want to see John Kerry win the White House? Is there any doubt in your mind who they would vote for?"

"Al Qaeda's endorsement means as much to me as a dog turd's endorsement does."

Yup, no contradiction there!
First, he's very concerned, then not at all.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:04 pm
the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

Yup, no contradiction there!
First, he's very concerned, then not at all.


"He" being both McGentrix and Boortz?

McGentrix are you Boortz?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:09 pm
Wow, I had no idea. Their avatars are very different.
0 Replies
 
the reincarnation of suzy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:34 pm
Oh, I see. So he's quoting Boortz, and I'm supposed to click on a link (which I thought was his title) to find out! Oh...
I rarely open links.
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:39 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Let me try this again so you understand it.


I understood it fine the first time.

Maybe you don't understand me. I'm saying that your dismissal of Al Qaeda's endorsement is because they just happen to be endorsing your candidate. Had they been endorsing Kerry, its my opinion that you wouldn't just dismiss it. You would use their endorsement to further attack those who are against Bush.

I might be wrong in thinking that, but the chances are pretty slim.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:39 pm
So, like, who's Boortz? I'm guessing one of the legion of right-wing screed writers brought to our attention here on a daily basis.

Life was so much simpler when Buckley was the media conservative. At least he's literate...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Jun, 2004 03:49 pm
Boortz also has a clear warning on the website to not take anything written there all that seriously.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2021 at 04:00:59