the end is near for the USA

Status
Not open for further replies.

tinyTURTLE

Well-Known Member
forget the obama nation. this is gonna be an obamanation as in the monster fuck up. it fucking pisses me off that because i make more than 250k im gonna have to support a bunch of fucking bums on welfare. im not saying peoople dont need welfare.....just most on it now dont. fuck we are screwed.
you will be paying the same tax rate as under clinton. and if you made a shit-ton of money while bush was in office... well, i don't want to say you're part of the problem... but that certainly doesn't mean you can't be a part of the solution.
 

medicineman

New Member
you will be paying the same tax rate as under clinton. and if you made a shit-ton of money while bush was in office... well, i don't want to say you're part of the problem... but that certainly doesn't mean you can't be a part of the solution.
I'm sorry, but they are the problem. The rich dickheads that want to make even more money off the backs of the working stiffs, the anti-union, anti-tax conservatives that think their shit doesn't stink are the fucking problem. They have raped and pillaged for far too long. It is time for payback.
 

Bucket head

Well-Known Member
Maybe if Clinton had the balls to pull the trigger...9/11 would not have happened either....


out. :blsmoke:

OK i normally stay out of these debates but, come on man its a little more complicated than one guy just pulling the trigger. Osama has been affiliated with The CIA and or the federal gov't for decades. He is only a small part of a lager agenda and to assume he is souly at fault for 9/11 is a little off. Moreover any of that Clinton had open opportunitys to get rid of him,but was being blocked by red tape and special interest. Dont get me wrong im not necessarily defending Clinton here, i am just pointing out the fact that neither administration has done much to rid the world of bin laden.
In bush's case he was there boggyman to use in order to facilitate their neo-con agenda of preemptive strategic military engagements. And with clinton The was a lot if conflicting interests and mismanagement. just my 2 cents...:leaf:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Perhaps you are unaware that on three separate occasions the CIA knew the exact location of Osama and each time asked for permission to take him out and three times Clinton said NO. Had he actually been serious and said yes on any of those occasions... perhaps history would have been changed for the better. Perhaps our twin towers would still be standing and 3000+ people need not have died in vain.

Clinton simply wanted to be popular and his foreign policy showed it. He caved on every tough call. That is why a president is elected.....to make the tough calls.

out. :blsmoke:
 

miko

Well-Known Member
Osama was treated at as u.s. hospital in dubai a few years ago and met by senior cia agents. Enough said.
 
P

PadawanBater

Guest
That's some funny stuff :lol:

out. :blsmoke:

Are you saying 911 was completely Clintons fault? Every aspect of it, because he (as you say, again, without ever citing sources..) had the opportunity to kill Bin Ladin more than once and didn't do it...? That makes 911 entirely Clintons fault?

Does that really make sense in your own head?

Using this same logic, are we not responsible for the gassing of the Kurds by Sadaam by not taking Sadaam out? Are we responsible for the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur because we could help those people and oust their dictators but we choose not to..? North Korea, are we not responsible for the amount of people who die there because of government abuse?

The logic doesn't make any sense, this method would make the US responsible for any catastrophe that happened, and the president at the time would be entirely at fault. You should be looking at how the president handles the situation he/she finds themselves in more than the actual (sometimes unpreventable) circumstances of the situation itself.

You can't blame someone for something they have no control over, and even if you could, what, say Clinton was entirely at fault for 911, what does that prove, what point are you trying to make, that it's always the democrats fault (again), that the republicans would have pulled the trigger and 911 would never have happened if they were in power, because if that's really the angle you're trying to play, I'd love to see you try, so go right ahead... Why do you keep bringing up something completely off topic (Clinton) when nobody is even talking about him...? You know what that's called? Ad Hominim, pretty common fallacy, dodge the topic and throw in your own to avoid answering, as if I'd miss it... come on CJ, I'm not missing anything and that shit ain't gonna slide.... stay on topic.
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
Are you saying 911 was completely Clintons fault? Every aspect of it, because he (as you say, again, without ever citing sources..) had the opportunity to kill Bin Ladin more than once and didn't do it...? That makes 911 entirely Clintons fault?

Does that really make sense in your own head?

Using this same logic, are we not responsible for the gassing of the Kurds by Sadaam by not taking Sadaam out? Are we responsible for the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur because we could help those people and oust their dictators but we choose not to..? North Korea, are we not responsible for the amount of people who die there because of government abuse?

The logic doesn't make any sense, this method would make the US responsible for any catastrophe that happened, and the president at the time would be entirely at fault. You should be looking at how the president handles the situation he/she finds themselves in more than the actual (sometimes unpreventable) circumstances of the situation itself.

You can't blame someone for something they have no control over, and even if you could, what, say Clinton was entirely at fault for 911, what does that prove, what point are you trying to make, that it's always the democrats fault (again), that the republicans would have pulled the trigger and 911 would never have happened if they were in power, because if that's really the angle you're trying to play, I'd love to see you try, so go right ahead... Why do you keep bringing up something completely off topic (Clinton) when nobody is even talking about him...? You know what that's called? Ad Hominim, pretty common fallacy, dodge the topic and throw in your own to avoid answering, as if I'd miss it... come on CJ, I'm not missing anything and that shit ain't gonna slide.... stay on topic.
Yes it's completely Clinton's Fault.

He was offered Osama Bin Laden at least once that I've heard about, after the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing.

And he failed to take it.

If he'd used his brain instead of his dick a little more often, he would have easily seen that it was logical (and warranted) to accept the offer to have Osama Bin Laden handed over to the US.

Would this have prevented 9/11. Possibly, and it possibly might not have, but by failing to take the offer to have Bin Laden handed over, Clinton effectively guaranteed that it was going to happen.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Three times it was offered and Osama's location was known. CIA asked permission each time to take him out. Each time it was denied. Pretty simple really. Would this have prevented future history? I cannot say obviously with 100% accuracy, but by chopping the snakes head off, it's hard to fathom that we would have been bitten later.

CIA field agent Gary Bernsten told ABC News that the “CIA provided an American president, Bill Clinton, multiple opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden,” Bernsten said. “We provided those opportunities, tactical opportunities which were not taken.” Bernsten said that CIA Director George Tenet gave the word to stop three opportunities to kill bin Laden. (ABC News The Blotter, September 10, 2006)

Want some more? :lol:

According to former Democratic fund raiser Mansoor Ijaz:
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. “Sandy” Berger and Sudan’s president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt’s Islamic Jihad, Iran’s Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening. As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster. (LA Times December 5 2001)
Never heard about this from the media?Perhaps you don't want to hear about it.


out. :blsmoke:


Ever hear of Shuer
 

misshestermoffitt

New Member
Well see Clinton had a choice, you wanna go after Osama, or do you want an intern blowjob? Well he thought with the little head instead of the big head and the rest is history........
 

max420thc

Well-Known Member
LMAO. If it wasn't for France there would be no America. We gave you democracy, your welcome.

Good job fuckstick. :clap:
,we have been trying to give you democracy ,soap,and a tooth brush ever since,and if you gave us capitalism why are you all socialists?
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Yep, Obama is shutting down the engine which powers the global economy. I think the rest of the world wants a do over on the election.... too late. That's what all that pre election gossip has brought you. Butch up and take your economic beatings like a grown up. Just hope that it will only be an economic punishment. It may become far worse than that....

out. :blsmoke:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top