Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237828July 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237837
Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantOC: Careful about taking Obama to task. Around here, that can be treated like heresy.
This country has collectively decided to stop thinking. That is apparent when any discussion across the ideological divide turns into a nasty shouting match.
That we are worried about gay marriage when the economy is in the tank, our education system is failing and our ability to compete on the world stage is faltering is absolutely unbelievable to me.
But Obama is gonna fix it. Yup. Probably the same way that McCain would fix it. Or Kerry.
BTW, I think pretty much all guys mellow out with a little head, right?
July 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237885Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantOC: Careful about taking Obama to task. Around here, that can be treated like heresy.
This country has collectively decided to stop thinking. That is apparent when any discussion across the ideological divide turns into a nasty shouting match.
That we are worried about gay marriage when the economy is in the tank, our education system is failing and our ability to compete on the world stage is faltering is absolutely unbelievable to me.
But Obama is gonna fix it. Yup. Probably the same way that McCain would fix it. Or Kerry.
BTW, I think pretty much all guys mellow out with a little head, right?
July 11, 2008 at 3:43 PM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237897Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantOC: Careful about taking Obama to task. Around here, that can be treated like heresy.
This country has collectively decided to stop thinking. That is apparent when any discussion across the ideological divide turns into a nasty shouting match.
That we are worried about gay marriage when the economy is in the tank, our education system is failing and our ability to compete on the world stage is faltering is absolutely unbelievable to me.
But Obama is gonna fix it. Yup. Probably the same way that McCain would fix it. Or Kerry.
BTW, I think pretty much all guys mellow out with a little head, right?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237505Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237638Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237646Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237694Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:44 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237708Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: Harriet Miers. She seemed pretty dedicated to ‘ol Dubya. He’d have to close his eyes, though. I think if someone gave Osama bin Laden a quick BJ every once in a while, 9/11 would probably not have happened, either.
Given that you have a whole series of terrorist acts under Clinton’s watch that went unpunished or lightly punished (killing that nefarious aspirin factory, for instance), what on earth could possibly compel you to state that 9/11 would NOT have happened on Clinton’s watch? Hell, you have Osama himself saying that the lack of resolve following the attacks on US facilities, ships and personnel was a motive factor and that our hasty and embarrassing withdrawal from Somalia emboldened al Qaeda. You don’t think 9/11 could possibly have happened with Clinton in the White House? Really?
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237495Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237628Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237636Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237684Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:28 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237698Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I can’t speak to Kerry or Gore (although I would opine that Gore would probably come up with a pretty good energy policy).
However, Clinton’s record in foreign policy is a matter of public record and the record isn’t good. In the plus column, Clinton did make some positive interventions (albeit very tardily in the Balkans). In the negative column, you have Somalia, North Korea, absolute silence following the two African embassy bombings, first WTC bombing, Khobar Towers (Saudi), and the USS Cole attack. He dithered for years while the Serbs ethnically cleansed the Balkans, but did finally commit to a very effective bombing campaign.
I have friends who served under Clinton, and I lost two friends during Somalia (Task Force Ranger/Operation Gothic Serpent), and all agree that Clinton was an unmitigated disaster when it came to foreign policy. Bush, however, is right there with him.
Wasn’t Kerry the guy who voted for the war, until he voted against it? I think old John would have his own set of issues. And I find his calling those who served in Vietnam “baby killers” grotesque.
July 11, 2008 at 11:19 AM in reply to: Shouldn’t we know the sexual turn-ons of the candidates? #237485Allan from Fallbrook
ParticipantPeace: I don’t think you and I are talking about the same thing here. Suborning perjury is not lying, it is getting another person to lie under oath (in this case, Monica Lewinsky).
Yes, I have a problem with a President lying, whether he is Dem or Repub. However, I have a much bigger problem with a sitting President, who is also a trained attorney, suborning perjury before Congress. A lie is bad. This is far worse.
And the American people have been wearing that blue dress since the 1950s.
-
AuthorPosts
