Obama has an epiphany. Finally admits we are at war.

[Liability]

Actually conservatives support the the war against terrorism, on both fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq has been as equally important as Afghanistan. In both countries, america has killed or captured many Al Qaida leaders, and Al Qaida soldiers.

As I demontrated, troop levels in Afghanistan have increased under Pres. Bush. There was a surge that was workign quite well in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

In Afghanistan, Al Qaida militants became more and more desperate.

What needs to be done is america need to go wherever these terrorists are hiding and have sanction. If that means Yemen next so be it.

If Iran and Syria are helping them, there are things the US can do sort of a full scale invasion to give them a message, such as a 2,000 pound bomb on their ministry of defense building.

Liberals are against the war in Iraq, simply because Pres. Bush was for it.

I recall before the invasion of Afghanistan the liberals shouting how we should never do it. How the Soviet Union never succeede in Afghanistan and how America can't either. How there will be over 100,000 american soliders dead because of it. It's kind of funny that this is the one place that they say that they are interested in.

Thank you Jake for the civil discussion.

Once again you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Charley Reese said ".... U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."

Paul Craig Roberts said "...."an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

James Webb said "... "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
Conservatives Against a War with Iraq, by Rep. John J. Duncan


I don't think you have the first clue about real Republicans. You probably actually believe shitheads like Cheney Rumsfeld Counter Oreilly Hannity etc, represent Republicans and I'm sure you don't have the first fucking clue about what has been happening in my Party.

Some more info:

Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is "a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay." Gold looks to Goldwater, "a straight-talking, freethinking maverick," as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen. He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of "a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell." The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, "two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth."
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d.html?pd=1&a=1402208413]Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP:Amazon:Books[/ame]


Your ignorance is astounding.

This is a good example of how CMike, PP, liability, etc.....skip over posts they are not capable of responding to. Instead they whine about insignificant shit. They claim to be informed but even on rudimentary elements they know they fail to grasp the slightest tinges.

That's bent tight's standard M.O. He quotes excessively making his posts far too long-winded and almost unreadable. He cites his opinions as though they were facts or even fact-based. They aren't. He attempts, in his pathetically ineffective way, to marginalize his opposition via ad hominems all the while whining about ad hominems when shot back at his stupid ass. And he lies his ass off constantly.

No need to thank me for so accurately summarizing bent tight's posting efforts. Really. It's just a public service.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, your are the inventer of Teabag speak, the ad hominem. You are a hoot!

 

[Liability]

Liability, your are the inventer of Teabag speak, the ad hominem. You are a hoot!

Jokey, you are nothing but a fraud.

You can obsess over me all day every day for the rest of your wortheless maggoty life. It's ok.

Since you ARE just a bad joke, though, Jokey, you shouldn't delude yourself for even one moment into thinking that anybody takes your transparent hypocrisy and dishonesty as serious or worthwhile.

Only liberoidal assbites like you speak of Tea Party as teabagging. You are a liberal Democrap and a transparent fraud.

 

[CurveLight]

Once again you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

Charley Reese said ".... U.S. attack on Iraq: "is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension – urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another – has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure."

Paul Craig Roberts said "...."an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history."

James Webb said "... "The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years."
Conservatives Against a War with Iraq, by Rep. John J. Duncan


I don't think you have the first clue about real Republicans. You probably actually believe shitheads like Cheney Rumsfeld Counter Oreilly Hannity etc, represent Republicans and I'm sure you don't have the first fucking clue about what has been happening in my Party.

Some more info:

Make no mistake: author Gold, a former speechwriter for George H.W. Bush and aide to Barry Goldwater, is one disgusted Republican. The GOP of the 2006 midterm election, he writes, is "a party of pork-barrel ear-markers like Dennis Hastert, of political hatchet men like Karl Rove, and of Bible-thumping hypocrites like Tom Delay." Gold looks to Goldwater, "a straight-talking, freethinking maverick," as the yardstick by which to measure just how far the party of Lincoln has fallen. He traces the beginning of the end to the 1980 Republican National Convention and the presence of "a militant new element...personified by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell." The other half of the equation, the neoconservatives, are embodied by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, "two cuts from the same Machiavellian cloth."
Invasion of the Party Snatchers: How the Holy-Rollers and the Neo-Cons Destroyed the GOP:Amazon:Books


Your ignorance is astounding.

This is a good example of how CMike, PP, liability, etc.....skip over posts they are not capable of responding to. Instead they whine about insignificant shit. They claim to be informed but even on rudimentary elements they know they fail to grasp the slightest tinges.

That's bent tight's standard M.O. He quotes excessively making his posts far too long-winded and almost unreadable. He cites his opinions as though they were facts or even fact-based. They aren't. He attempts, in his pathetically ineffective way, to marginalize his opposition via ad hominems all the while whining about ad hominems when shot back at his stupid ass. And he lies his ass off constantly.

No need to thank me for so accurately summarizing bent tight's posting efforts. Really. It's just a public service.

My posts are almost unreadable because I cite evidence and links? ROTFL! Dude! You are definitely the winner of the biggest bitch contest. Lol. I offer my opinions and if it is done so well it appears as fact to you it's only because you don't know how to debate and cannot tell the difference between fact and opinion. If my posts confuse you so much then stop reading and whining about them.

 

[CurveLight]

Liability, your are the inventer of Teabag speak, the ad hominem. You are a hoot!

Jokey, you are nothing but a fraud.

You can obsess over me all day every day for the rest of your wortheless maggoty life. It's ok.

Since you ARE just a bad joke, though, Jokey, you shouldn't delude yourself for even one moment into thinking that anybody takes your transparent hypocrisy and dishonesty as serious or worthwhile.

Only liberoidal assbites like you speak of Tea Party as teabagging. You are a liberal Democrap and a transparent fraud.

The teabagger term originated with the teabaggers.....not anyone else. Thanks again for revealing your infinite ignorance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability, your are the inventer of Teabag speak, the ad hominem. You are a hoot!

Jokey, you are nothing but a fraud.

You can obsess over me all day every day for the rest of your wortheless maggoty life. It's ok.

Since you ARE just a bad joke, though, Jokey, you shouldn't delude yourself for even one moment into thinking that anybody takes your transparent hypocrisy and dishonesty as serious or worthwhile.

Only liberoidal assbites like you speak of Tea Party as teabagging. You are a liberal Democrap and a transparent fraud.

Oh, I guess you are right, Liability. That's why your last two attempts against me failed, I guess. You think ad hom is acceptable. All it is hitting the messenger instead of the message, always indication the one doing the smearing has lost.

 

[Liability]

* * * *


My posts are almost unreadable because I cite evidence and links?

Blind people can see how dishonest you are, bent.

Since that is not even REMOTELY what I had just POSTED, you are either a complete imbecile when it comes to reading comprehension OR a deliberate liar. I vote that you are a deliberate liar since you have WAY too many "accidents" like that to be merely accidental.

No, asstard. What I commented upon was your excessive use of quotes. You quote a post with a lot of nested lengthy posts and your added commentary only serves to make it so much unnecessarily more verbose. Jeez. It's like you lack the mental capacity to learn how to snip.

You fucking utterly brainless liberoidal assbites are an irritant.

But, that's ok. It makes exposing you as the fraud you are all that much more enjoyable.

Muddle on!

 

[CurveLight]

* * * *


My posts are almost unreadable because I cite evidence and links?

Blind people can see how dishonest you are, bent.

Since that is not even REMOTELY what I had just POSTED, you are either a complete imbecile when it comes to reading comprehension OR a deliberate liar. I vote that you are a deliberate liar since you have WAY too many "accidents" like that to be merely accidental.

No, asstard. What I commented upon was your excessive use of quotes. You quote a post with a lot of nested lengthy posts and your added commentary only serves to make it so much unnecessarily more verbose. Jeez. It's like you lack the mental capacity to learn how to snip.

You fucking utterly brainless liberoidal assbites are an irritant.

But, that's ok. It makes exposing you as the fraud you are all that much more enjoyable.

Muddle on!

Lol....you are bitching that I don't edit posts? Lol....damn you are one desperate fucking individual. You constantly whine about how I post. It must seriously piss you off how much you get pwned. That must be why you work so hard to focus on posters instead of posts.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Oh, I guess you are right, Liability. That's why your last two attempts against me failed, I guess.

Nothing I have ever posted about you has "failed." You cannot stop lying. Poor you.

You think ad hom is acceptable.

LOL! That really is funny coming from YOU! Yes. I resort to ad hominems when it comes to fucktards like you who use it all the time instead of actually doing or saying anything of value.

All it is hitting the messenger instead of the message, always indication the one doing the smearing has lost.

Then you MUST explain, someday, why YOU think YOU can do it (as you so frequently do) without that same criticism applying to you!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liability is saying that he cannot deal with lengthy material, that it is above his ability with which to work.

That's OK, L. Maybe other fields that require less cognitive ability may be the way for you to go. Talk to your HS counselor.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Lol....you are bitching that I don't edit posts?

Again, no, you stupid lying asstard. I'm not bitching about anything, stupid. I was, however, noting that your posts are WAY too long -- and for no rational reason.

Snipping is just one of the many tools you cannot grasp.

 

[beowolfe]

11 months and 3 terrorist attacks into his Presidency he now realizes we are at war.

“We are at war,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House State Dining Room.

There now Mr. President...that wasn't so painful now was it?

“We must follow the leads that we get and we must pursue them until plots are disrupted,” Mr. Obama said. “We can’t sit on information to protect the American people.”

Oh...so that's what's been happening the last 11 months. Really!!!?

and finally the one thing Obama needed to say back in January when he assumed the Office of the Presidency and the RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM.

“The buck stops with me.”

Yes it does. I guarantee you if there's another terrorist attack your Administration is definately out the door in 2012.

This is what kills me about you wingnuts. You're always wrong!! It's not as if Obama has never acknowledged a war with Al Queda, he just doesn't call it a 'War on Terror'. Why? Well, if you believe him, terror is a tactic and one cannot be at war with a tactic. And I agree with him. If we're engaged in a 'war on terror', you're saying that if AQ uses some other tactic than terror attacks, you're cool with that.

 

[CMike]

11 months and 3 terrorist attacks into his Presidency he now realizes we are at war.

“We are at war,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House State Dining Room.

There now Mr. President...that wasn't so painful now was it?

Oh...so that's what's been happening the last 11 months. Really!!!?

and finally the one thing Obama needed to say back in January when he assumed the Office of the Presidency and the RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM.

“The buck stops with me.”

Yes it does. I guarantee you if there's another terrorist attack your Administration is definately out the door in 2012.

This is what kills me about you wingnuts. You're always wrong!! It's not as if Obama has never acknowledged a war with Al Queda, he just doesn't call it a 'War on Terror'. Why? Well, if you believe him, terror is a tactic and one cannot be at war with a tactic. And I agree with him. If we're engaged in a 'war on terror', you're saying that if AQ uses some other tactic than terror attacks, you're cool with that.

Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces 'Terrorism' With the Term 'Man-Caused Disaster' | NewsBusters.org


SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

 

[Liability]

11 months and 3 terrorist attacks into his Presidency he now realizes we are at war.

“We are at war,” Mr. Obama said in remarks from the White House State Dining Room.

There now Mr. President...that wasn't so painful now was it?

Oh...so that's what's been happening the last 11 months. Really!!!?

and finally the one thing Obama needed to say back in January when he assumed the Office of the Presidency and the RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WAR ON TERRORISM.

“The buck stops with me.”

Yes it does. I guarantee you if there's another terrorist attack your Administration is definately out the door in 2012.

This is what kills me about you wingnuts. You're always wrong!! It's not as if Obama has never acknowledged a war with Al Queda, he just doesn't call it a 'War on Terror'. Why? Well, if you believe him, terror is a tactic and one cannot be at war with a tactic. And I agree with him. If we're engaged in a 'war on terror', you're saying that if AQ uses some other tactic than terror attacks, you're cool with that.

You are waxing kind of silly.

The inaccurate PHRASE "war on terror" is clearly just that. Inaccurate phrasing. No. We cannot fight a war against the tactic employed by an enemy. But we sure as hell can fight the enemy which uses that tactic.

And if we are not willing to call terrorists "terrorists," then I am not sure what chance we have in ever succeeding in our efforts to bring them down. They are what they are. And they need to be fought. Regardless of the petty quibbling over the loose use of language, they need to be fought and they need to be soundly defeated.

 

[CMike]

There are people who practice medicine they are called doctors

There are people who juggle boods they are called accountants

There are people who practice terrorism they are called terrorists

The war is against Al Qaida and other such terrorist groups, as well as the states that support them. It's a war against terrorism.

Terrorism is not a tactic to Al Qaida. That is their entire strategy. That is what they do. They are terrorists.

Obama is an idiot to come up with such nonsense

 

[JakeStarkey]

cmike, let you in on a secret.

Obama et al does not really care what you and the other wingnut skells think.

 

[Liability]

cmike, let you in on a secret.

Obama et al does not really care what you and the other wingnut skells think.

Jokey doesn't even know what skell means.

But, out of the mouth of that retard emerges (unintentionally of course) one tiny nugget of truth.

This President does NOT care what anybody but the uber-liberoidal Democratics think.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Skell, a perp like Liability. It fits you, L-steer, because you are a crime against logic on this board.

 

[CMike]

cmike, let you in on a secret.

Obama et al does not really care what you and the other wingnut skells think.

Well why do you think we had three terrorist attacks in one year?

 

[Foxfyre]

cmike, let you in on a secret.

Obama et al does not really care what you and the other wingnut skells think.

Jokey doesn't even know what skell means.

But, out of the mouth of that retard emerges (unintentionally of course) one tiny nugget of truth.

This President does NOT care what anybody but the uber-liberoidal Democratics think.

Wouldn't you think all or most of the skells would be Democrats?