VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

the reincarnation of suzy wrote:

It's too late for dialogue with BinLaden, and I don't see anybody here saying otherwise, do you?

The fellow McGentrix saw on Hannity & Colmbs did.

What? Did you think that I was referring to you simply because of your:

"How sad that dialogue is seen as appeasement.
That's the kind of attitude that makes enemies in the first place. "

I know you're all for killing the guys who are trying to kill us, and assumed the above bold statement was simply a knee jerk reaction. I didn't take it seriously.

0 Replies

McG didn't quote anyone so I don't know what was actually said. Do you?

And no, I didn't think you were referring to me, as I'm not the only one who spoke of dialog.
But I can assure you, my statement was in no way knee-jerk. I'm quite proud of it, actually.
maybe I'll make it even bigger Smile

0 Replies

LMAO... Thank you for digging up those translations Craven! Laughing

Great link too! I picked up that new book I've been meaning to read

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/rags.jpg

Actually, I'm with Foxfyre in wondering if the parodies weren't just exaggerating what had been already been done. Idea

Suzy, our founding fathers were blowing people's heads off for taxing their breakfast beverage and it wasn't even coffee. They wouldn't have stood still for any of this sh!t. They'll stop rolling over when we stop playing games and finish this fight. I do agree with the other half of that post, though! :wink: :wink:

0 Replies

You're actually probably right with that point, Bill. But I think they wrote the Constitution and all that other "guiding stuff" to be better than them...
And it takes a better man than Bush to do it justice, is what I'm saying!
Boy, Mr Clinton just keeps getting hotter Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Re: VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Craven de Kere wrote:

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."

Quote:

The United States believes the Abu Hafs group lacks credibility and has only tenuous ties to Al Qaeda

Thanks for the Fox News link Craven, but you said that Al Qaeda has publicly endorsed Bush. To me, that means Bin Laden or one of his lieutenants... Not some hack from Spain.

0 Replies

I agree, and the Spain branch's texts have a decidedly different tone than the ones from the groups in the Mid East and Southeast Asia. And I have long said I wouldn't read much into it (I posted it here because I think we should read even less into Boortz's call to vote against Kerry).

But remember that a lot of political hay was made from their bombing in Madrid, and many conservatives really played up the "bowing to Al Qaeda" angle, not the "bowing to a group that lacks credibility and has only tenuous ties to Al Qaeda".

I don't plan to quibble about how Al Qaeda the group is.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

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.

The pot calls the kettle black, as the saying goes Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Finn wrote:

In the overall scheme of things, I don't think they really care all that much who wins the election in November. Their enemies are Americans, not Republican Americans. If Kerry should win, he isn't about to call for Paris Peace Talks with Bin Laden, and if they attack us again while he's president, he will have no choice but to take some kind of military action.

Amen to that. At this point I think those who have their hearts set on attacking America are not going to be dissuaded by politics.

I mean if there's a way they can make it look like they had a big influence they might make a big deal out of a "truce" they feel they have wrought but IMO it has a lot more to do with their vanity and how they can maximize the perception of their importance than things like political candidates.

0 Replies

While I put most conspiracy theories on the top shelf in the 'kook' corner, I have to wonder about Al Qaida's presumed preference for GWB over Kerry.

Is this reverse psychology as presumed by some; ie they think their endorsing Bush will give Kerry some kind of advantage? If so, do they prefer Kerry because they fear Bush and think Kerry would be easier to defeat? Or do they hate Bush so much they think they can best humiliate him by proclaiming a President Kerry as their good friend who brought peace and harmony to America? Or do they genuinely want Bush to win so they can keep making his life miserable?

As they were carrying out and planning attacks against Americans long before GWB came on the scene, I have a hard time believing he is the problem so far as terroism is concerned. But the possibilities to speculate on are endless.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Is this reverse psychology as presumed by some; ie they think their endorsing Bush will give Kerry some kind of advantage? If so, do they prefer Kerry because they fear Bush and think Kerry would be easier to defeat? Or do they hate Bush so much they think they can best humiliate him by proclaiming a President Kerry as their good friend who brought peace and harmony to America? Or do they genuinely want Bush to win so they can keep making his life miserable?

Man, your guess is as good as anyone else's.

Question

0 Replies

Rick d'Israeli wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
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.

The pot calls the kettle black, as the saying goes

show me one post that's a don't vote for Kerry post I've ever made....I defy you...you owe me an apology.....I'm sensitive you know..... Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
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.

The pot calls the kettle black, as the saying goes

show me one post that's a don't vote for Kerry post I've ever made....I defy you...you owe me an apology.....I'm sensitive you know.....

sensitive...hemorhoids acting up again?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
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.

The pot calls the kettle black, as the saying goes

show me one post that's a don't vote for Kerry post I've ever made....I defy you...you owe me an apology.....I'm sensitive you know.....

sensitive...hemorhoids acting up again?

I didn't even realize you'd taken a break......

0 Replies

Does anybody besides me get lost with a posted post within a post within a post within a post within a post as illustration for a post? Is this a right-brain left-brain kind of thing do you think?

0 Replies

yeah, I'm feeling a little dizzy myself! Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

While I put most conspiracy theories on the top shelf in the 'kook' corner, I have to wonder about Al Qaida's presumed preference for GWB over Kerry.

One of the theories (I call them theories because I'm not privy to the sources of the people who say this sort of things) that I've heard when middle-eastern scholars debate - is that the feeling is that GWB's bring 'em on speech was a sort of signal that he'd have no problem in continuing to send American troops out - which makes it easier for them to be attacked. If Al Qaida doesn't have to come to America to attack Americans, so much the better (or so some of the 'cognoscenti' have suggested). Democrats (this view was expressed before Kerry was the expected candidate) were felt to be less likely to support ongoing on-the-ground action in the middle east.

This line of reasoning puzzled me when I first heard it last fall, but I'm starting to sort of 'get' it.

Can I add any more qualifiers to that ^^^ ?

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
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.

The pot calls the kettle black, as the saying goes

show me one post that's a don't vote for Kerry post I've ever made....I defy you...you owe me an apology.....I'm sensitive you know.....

sensitive...hemorhoids acting up again?

I didn't even realize you'd taken a break......

I am merely the burr that irritates.

0 Replies

bitter dingleberry I was thinking.....

0 Replies

Just exactly the right amount of qualifiers I think ebeth. What scares me is I actually followed that. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

show me one post that's a don't vote for Kerry post I've ever made....I defy you...you owe me an apology.....I'm sensitive you know.....

My point: you criticize McGentrix for making a post a "don't vote for Kerry" post. Meanwhile, you are doing the same thing concerning Bush, right? I mean with that: starting a post which ends in a "don't vote Bush" post. I wouldn't have a problem with that - frankly, I want an end to the Bush era -, but it's unfair to McGentrix.

0 Replies

VICIOUS, BLOODTHIRSTY BASTARDS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know