Title: Just an announcement...
Willieisdead - November 2, 2009 10:38 PM (GMT)
Bush hasn't been President for 9 months.
That is all.
Thank you
Clarence Boddicker - November 2, 2009 11:01 PM (GMT)
Ralph Nader - November 3, 2009 12:44 AM (GMT)
Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all.
DR_PostingBillboard - November 3, 2009 01:04 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 08:44 PM) |
Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Obama gets a pass...
Willieisdead - November 3, 2009 01:21 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (DR_PostingBillboard @ Nov 3 2009, 01:04 AM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 08:44 PM) | Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Obama gets a pass...
|
Thinking more of USTA and Sheik, but sure...
ComandantePepsi - November 3, 2009 01:39 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM) |
Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups.
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 01:43 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM) |
Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Huh. That's just what the Bushbots were saying when they kept bringing up Clinton during Bush's terms. Don't recall you being a particularly big fan of that when THEY were doing it.
O well, just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters...
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 01:45 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:39 PM) |
Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups. |
Whereas Clinton, of course, bears NO responsibility for any of the problems that followed his terms in office.
Rule number one of both leftist/liberal/Democrats and rightwing/conservative/Republican hacks: Anything good that ever happens anywhere is always to your party's credit, anything bad that ever happens anywhere is always the other party's fault. No matter what, no thinking or knowledge or basis in reality necessary.
ComandantePepsi - November 3, 2009 01:47 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 05:45 PM) |
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:39 PM) | Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups. |
Whereas Clinton, of course, bears NO responsibility for any of the problems that followed his terms in office.
Rule number one of both leftist/liberal/Democrats and rightwing/conservative/Republican hacks: Anything good that ever happens anywhere is always to your party's credit, anything bad that ever happens anywhere is always the other party's fault. No matter what, no thinking or knowledge or basis in reality necessary.
|
Constantly being under siege from all sides must be exhausting.
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 01:49 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:47 PM) |
Constantly being under siege from all sides must be exhausting. |
Huh, I was pretty sure I was the one doing the siege-ing...
It's really more "entertaining" than "exhausting", though; albeit in a very dark, morbid sense.
ComandantePepsi - November 3, 2009 01:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 05:49 PM) |
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:47 PM) | Constantly being under siege from all sides must be exhausting. |
Huh, I was pretty sure I was the one doing the siege-ing...
It's really more "entertaining" than "exhausting", though; albeit in a very dark, morbid sense.
|
That's good. I don't want you to get worn out.
Ralph Nader - November 3, 2009 01:59 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (DR_PostingBillboard @ Nov 3 2009, 02:04 AM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 08:44 PM) | Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Obama gets a pass...
|
Ya, that's what i said dumb fuck.
Ralph Nader - November 3, 2009 02:02 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 02:43 AM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM) | Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Huh. That's just what the Bushbots were saying when they kept bringing up Clinton during Bush's terms. Don't recall you being a particularly big fan of that when THEY were doing it.
O well, just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters...
|
Yes, Bush made no fuck up in his 8 years. :logik:
You're such a broken record. You the same shit over and over even if it doesn't apply. ie I hate the dems too just slitly less then the rebs.
Buy a clue dimwit.
Ralph Nader - November 3, 2009 02:03 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 02:49 AM) |
Huh, I was pretty sure I was the one doing the siege-ing... |
:lol: I'm sure you were. :fool:
Bucky7 - November 3, 2009 02:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 01:45 AM) |
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:39 PM) | Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups. |
Whereas Clinton, of course, bears NO responsibility for any of the problems that followed his terms in office.
Rule number one of both leftist/liberal/Democrats and rightwing/conservative/Republican hacks: Anything good that ever happens anywhere is always to your party's credit, anything bad that ever happens anywhere is always the other party's fault. No matter what, no thinking or knowledge or basis in reality necessary.
|
:yup:
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 02:30 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 06:02 PM) |
Yes, Bush made no fuck up in his 8 years. :logik:
You're such a broken record. You the same shit over and over even if it doesn't apply. ie I hate the dems too just slitly less then the rebs.
Buy a clue dimwit. |
Yeah, that's what I said. I'm a well-know Bush supporter after all, not one to criticize him. It's certainly not the case that I was merely pointing out the identical hypocrisies of both left and right, clearly I was attempting to insinuate the Bush's reign was a flawless one.
ChampsX5 - November 3, 2009 04:54 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 09:30 PM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 06:02 PM) | Yes, Bush made no fuck up in his 8 years. :logik:
You're such a broken record. You the same shit over and over even if it doesn't apply. ie I hate the dems too just slitly less then the rebs.
Buy a clue dimwit. |
Yeah, that's what I said. I'm a well-know Bush supporter after all, not one to criticize him. It's certainly not the case that I was merely pointing out the identical hypocrisies of both left and right, clearly I was attempting to insinuate the Bush's reign was a flawless one.
|
The ironic thing? He posted that right after responding to another post from you with this:
| QUOTE |
| Ya, that's what i said dumb fuck. |
Ralph Nader - November 3, 2009 12:53 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 03:30 AM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 06:02 PM) | Yes, Bush made no fuck up in his 8 years. :logik:
You're such a broken record. You the same shit over and over even if it doesn't apply. ie I hate the dems too just slitly less then the rebs.
Buy a clue dimwit. |
Yeah, that's what I said. I'm a well-know Bush supporter after all, not one to criticize him. It's certainly not the case that I was merely pointing out the identical hypocrisies of both left and right, clearly I was attempting to insinuate the Bush's reign was a flawless one.
|
So where's the hypocrisies dipshit?
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 02:16 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 09:43 PM) |
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 2 2009, 04:44 PM) | Yes, but we'll be living in his shit stain for many years to come.
That is all. |
Huh. That's just what the Bushbots were saying when they kept bringing up Clinton during Bush's terms.
|
are you talking about the budget surplus, no wars, and mild recession Clinton left behind?
and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ...
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 02:17 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 09:45 PM) |
| QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:39 PM) | Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups. |
Whereas Clinton, of course, bears NO responsibility for any of the problems that followed his terms in office.
Rule number one of both leftist/liberal/Democrats and rightwing/conservative/Republican hacks: Anything good that ever happens anywhere is always to your party's credit, anything bad that ever happens anywhere is always the other party's fault. No matter what, no thinking or knowledge or basis in reality necessary.
|
less irrational BS, more specifics, dipshit
DR_PostingBillboard - November 3, 2009 02:20 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 10:17 AM) |
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 2 2009, 09:45 PM) | | QUOTE (ComandantePepsi @ Nov 2 2009, 05:39 PM) | Yeah, Republicans like to leave a legacy. As soon as we stop cleaning up Reagan's mess I'll let you know how long we can expect to be dealing with Bush's fuckups. |
Whereas Clinton, of course, bears NO responsibility for any of the problems that followed his terms in office.
Rule number one of both leftist/liberal/Democrats and rightwing/conservative/Republican hacks: Anything good that ever happens anywhere is always to your party's credit, anything bad that ever happens anywhere is always the other party's fault. No matter what, no thinking or knowledge or basis in reality necessary.
|
less irrational BS, more specifics, dipshit
|
you are one reason that his statement rings true.
Dal1as - November 3, 2009 03:40 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 02:16 PM) |
| and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ... |
Which meant nothing since we had a split Intelligence community and no HUMINT in the mideast due to Clinton.
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 03:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Dal1as @ Nov 3 2009, 11:40 AM) |
| Which meant nothing since we had a split Intelligence community and no HUMINT in the mideast due to Clinton. |
by split you mean the divide between the PDB warning of an AQ attack and Bush's vacation plans...
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 04:10 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Ralph Nader @ Nov 3 2009, 04:53 AM) |
So where's the hypocrisies dipshit? |
You doing the same damn thing that you complained about them doing. THAT'S the hypocrisy.
For eight years, any time anyone criticized Bush, the response was to blame Clinton, refusing to confront the reality that Clinton was no longer in power, and to whatever degree he was responsible for creating/not dealing with various problems, the reality was that Bush was in the WH and responsible for HIS own failures.
Now that Obama is in power, it's the same damn thing. Any time he's criticized, just bring up Bush.
Harrison Bergeron - November 3, 2009 04:18 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:16 AM) |
are you talking about the budget surplus, no wars, and mild recession Clinton left behind?
and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ... |
There was no budget surplus, Clinton utterly failed to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban(actively tried to court the Taliban, in fact), and the economy was floating on various bubbles when he left, created by Federal Reserve policies and Democratic economic policies that encouraged, almost required even, that lenders make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Yay, what a great legacy! Not that you'll ever admit any of that, you'll just keep on repeating "budget surplus" over and over and over again, even though it isn't true, just like Bushbots keep trying to pretend we "won" in Iraq. Just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters, the attitude that they and their "team" are not constrained by the bonds of reality, that "reality" is whatever they imagine it to be.
Oh, and as to "no wars" I do feel it should be pointed out that the Clinton administration did in fact ramp up the illegal, undeclared wars in South America, particularly Columbia, waging war on poverty-stricken peasants in the name of "fighting drugs". Let's also not forget his cowardly war on Serbia in defense of Albanian Muslim terrorists, or his cowardly policy of constantly bombing Iraq, while starving its people with sanctions. Really swell humanitarian, that Clinton.
ChampsX5 - November 3, 2009 04:28 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 11:18 AM) |
| Oh, and as to "no wars" I do feel it should be pointed out that the Clinton administration did in fact ramp up the illegal, undeclared wars in South America, particularly Columbia, waging war on poverty-stricken peasants in the name of "fighting drugs". Let's also not forget his cowardly war on Serbia in defense of Albanian Muslim terrorists, or his cowardly policy of constantly bombing Iraq, while starving its people with sanctions. Really swell humanitarian, that Clinton. |
Don't forget Waco and Elian Gonzales. Imagine what USTA and the other loonies would say if either Bush had stormed a home with children, guns drawn and pointed, in the name of the government.
Clarence Boddicker - November 3, 2009 05:31 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 08:49 AM) |
| by split you mean the divide between the PDB warning of an AQ attack and Bush's vacation plans... |
Yes, because we all know that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen anyways.
:lol:
koppzilla - November 3, 2009 05:40 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Willieisdead @ Nov 2 2009, 04:38 PM) |
Bush hasn't been President for 9 months.
That is all.
Thank you |
Announcement Obama has been in office for 9 months. I wonder who ran the Afgran war for the previous 8 years.
JohnDough - November 3, 2009 05:47 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Clarence Boddicker @ Nov 3 2009, 10:31 AM) |
Yes, because we all know that Bush knew about 9/11 in advance and let it happen anyways.
:lol: |
Clarence Boddicker - November 3, 2009 05:50 PM (GMT)
Oh those 9/11 truthers are such characters.
Their conspiracy doesn't make any sense because it would've taken tens of thousands of people to be "in" on it, and usually, conspiracies that big aren't plausible to begin with.
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 05:52 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 12:18 PM) |
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:16 AM) | are you talking about the budget surplus, no wars, and mild recession Clinton left behind?
and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ... |
There was no budget surplus, Clinton utterly failed to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban(actively tried to court the Taliban, in fact), and the economy was floating on various bubbles when he left, created by Federal Reserve policies and Democratic economic policies that encouraged, almost required even, that lenders make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Yay, what a great legacy! Not that you'll ever admit any of that, you'll just keep on repeating "budget surplus" over and over and over again, even though it isn't true, just like Bushbots keep trying to pretend we "won" in Iraq. Just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters, the attitude that they and their "team" are not constrained by the bonds of reality, that "reality" is whatever they imagine it to be.
Oh, and as to "no wars" I do feel it should be pointed out that the Clinton administration did in fact ramp up the illegal, undeclared wars in South America, particularly Columbia, waging war on poverty-stricken peasants in the name of "fighting drugs". Let's also not forget his cowardly war on Serbia in defense of Albanian Muslim terrorists, or his cowardly policy of constantly bombing Iraq, while starving its people with sanctions. Really swell humanitarian, that Clinton.
|
my god, you're like a crazy ship with no rudder, just cruisin' on the ocean of make up all the crazy shit you can.
as for the no surplus comment - I'll respond with a CNN article:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...linton.surplus/
Jarhead - November 3, 2009 06:20 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 01:52 PM) |
| QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 12:18 PM) | | QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:16 AM) | are you talking about the budget surplus, no wars, and mild recession Clinton left behind?
and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ... |
There was no budget surplus, Clinton utterly failed to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban(actively tried to court the Taliban, in fact), and the economy was floating on various bubbles when he left, created by Federal Reserve policies and Democratic economic policies that encouraged, almost required even, that lenders make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Yay, what a great legacy! Not that you'll ever admit any of that, you'll just keep on repeating "budget surplus" over and over and over again, even though it isn't true, just like Bushbots keep trying to pretend we "won" in Iraq. Just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters, the attitude that they and their "team" are not constrained by the bonds of reality, that "reality" is whatever they imagine it to be.
Oh, and as to "no wars" I do feel it should be pointed out that the Clinton administration did in fact ramp up the illegal, undeclared wars in South America, particularly Columbia, waging war on poverty-stricken peasants in the name of "fighting drugs". Let's also not forget his cowardly war on Serbia in defense of Albanian Muslim terrorists, or his cowardly policy of constantly bombing Iraq, while starving its people with sanctions. Really swell humanitarian, that Clinton.
|
my god, you're like a crazy ship with no rudder, just cruisin' on the ocean of make up all the crazy shit you can. as for the no surplus comment - I'll respond with a CNN article: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...linton.surplus/ |
USTA, clinton and the republican congress were borrowing from the social security surplus to pay for government operating cost.
That is why there appeared to be a "budget surplus". That money needs to legally be paid back to the social security fund. This is why during this period it appeared we had a budget surplus yet our national debt continued to rise.'
Jarhead - November 3, 2009 06:30 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 11:49 AM) |
| by split you mean the divide between the PDB warning of an AQ attack and Bush's vacation plans... |
First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail.
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 06:40 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:20 PM) |
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 01:52 PM) | | QUOTE (Harrison Bergeron @ Nov 3 2009, 12:18 PM) | | QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:16 AM) | are you talking about the budget surplus, no wars, and mild recession Clinton left behind?
and let's not forget Clinton left behind Richard Clarke who tried to warn Bush about the importance of fighting terrorism and AQ... |
There was no budget surplus, Clinton utterly failed to deal with al Qaeda and the Taliban(actively tried to court the Taliban, in fact), and the economy was floating on various bubbles when he left, created by Federal Reserve policies and Democratic economic policies that encouraged, almost required even, that lenders make loans to people who couldn't pay them back.
Yay, what a great legacy! Not that you'll ever admit any of that, you'll just keep on repeating "budget surplus" over and over and over again, even though it isn't true, just like Bushbots keep trying to pretend we "won" in Iraq. Just one more example of how the left and the right are the same garbage in different dumpsters, the attitude that they and their "team" are not constrained by the bonds of reality, that "reality" is whatever they imagine it to be.
Oh, and as to "no wars" I do feel it should be pointed out that the Clinton administration did in fact ramp up the illegal, undeclared wars in South America, particularly Columbia, waging war on poverty-stricken peasants in the name of "fighting drugs". Let's also not forget his cowardly war on Serbia in defense of Albanian Muslim terrorists, or his cowardly policy of constantly bombing Iraq, while starving its people with sanctions. Really swell humanitarian, that Clinton.
|
my god, you're like a crazy ship with no rudder, just cruisin' on the ocean of make up all the crazy shit you can. as for the no surplus comment - I'll respond with a CNN article: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/s...linton.surplus/ |
USTA, clinton and the republican congress were borrowing from the social security surplus to pay for government operating cost.
That is why there appeared to be a "budget surplus". That money needs to legally be paid back to the social security fund. This is why during this period it appeared we had a budget surplus yet our national debt continued to rise.'
|
from the article: Instead, the president explained, the $5.7 trillion national debt has been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years -- $223 billion this year alone.
This represents, Clinton said, "the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States."
so you're mad a surplus was used to pay down the debt?
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 06:42 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) |
First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
Willieisdead - November 3, 2009 06:44 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:42 PM) |
| QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) | First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
|
Fucking dope.
Clarence Boddicker - November 3, 2009 06:44 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 11:42 AM) |
| QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) | First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
|
So you operate under the belief that Bush DID know about 9/11, and that while on vacation, he refused to be the President?
Clarence Boddicker - November 3, 2009 06:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Willieisdead @ Nov 3 2009, 11:44 AM) |
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 06:42 PM) | | QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) | First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
|
Fucking dope.
|
He just insults people because he knows deep down inside that he has no retort for anything.
USTA4 - November 3, 2009 06:45 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Clarence Boddicker @ Nov 3 2009, 02:44 PM) |
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 11:42 AM) | | QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) | First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
|
So you operate under the belief that Bush DID know about 9/11, and that while on vacation, he refused to be the President?
|
stay out of this. you're clearly not up to understanding anything
Clarence Boddicker - November 3, 2009 06:48 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 11:45 AM) |
| QUOTE (Clarence Boddicker @ Nov 3 2009, 02:44 PM) | | QUOTE (USTA4 @ Nov 3 2009, 11:42 AM) | | QUOTE (Jarhead @ Nov 3 2009, 02:30 PM) | First of all, the PDB did not indicate anything about an attack plans whereabouts, timeframe, etc... There was already investigations being done. The President has nothing to do with those investigations.
Second of all, presidents take a vacation in name only. While they may have an hour or two a day to vacation, they are still working and the administration they have is still working
Third of all the FBI and the CIA could not share information because of an intelligence wall set up in 1995. If you read the book Looming Tower, it lays the whole scenario out in detail. |
only the most far right loyalists are still eating this load of crap
|
So you operate under the belief that Bush DID know about 9/11, and that while on vacation, he refused to be the President?
|
stay out of this. you're clearly not up to understanding anything
|
I'll take that as a "Yes, I am a 9/11 truther."
Thanks for finally admitting it.