Are you some sort of dumbass , idiot savant?
If there were attacks tomorrow, those responsible would be the perpetrators.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why there isn't a new republican revolution...
- Thread starter ZZZzzzzzzz
- Start date
Are you some sort of dumbass , idiot savant?
If there were attacks tomorrow, those responsible would be the perpetrators.
Okay, since it appears you failed primary school...
If the attackers were successful in their attack, who would be to blame for their success and our failure to prevent a successful attack if that happened tomorrow, Bush or Obama?
Does that help you understand the question better?
If not, take some milk and cookies and lay down on your blankie for a nap...
If the attackers were successful in their attack, who would be to blame for their success and our failure to prevent a successful attack if that happened tomorrow, Bush or Obama?
Does that help you understand the question better?
If not, take some milk and cookies and lay down on your blankie for a nap...
Quote from Index piker:
Are you some sort of dumbass , idiot savant?
If there were attacks tomorrow, those responsible would be the perpetrators.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Okay, since it appears you failed primary school...
If the attackers were successful in their attack, who would be to blame for their success and our failure to prevent a successful attack if that happened tomorrow, Bush or Obama?
Does that help you understand the question better?
If not, take some milk and cookies and lay down on your blankie for a nap...
I could take enough LSD to kill an elephant and it wouldn't help your question magically become anything other than a stupid false dilemma .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Better save those cookies to assuge your pompASS ego.
You could provide another option if you like...
So who would be responsible if there were a successful attack on America tomorrow, who would be to blame for the failure to prevent that attack?
See, I left it open ended, you can provide any answer you like...
Or you can go back to your blankie...
So who would be responsible if there were a successful attack on America tomorrow, who would be to blame for the failure to prevent that attack?
See, I left it open ended, you can provide any answer you like...
Or you can go back to your blankie...
Quote from Index piker:
I could take enough LSD to kill an elephant and it wouldn't help your question magically become anything other than a stupid false dilemma .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Better save those cookies to assuge your pompASS ego.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
You could provide another option if you like...
So who would be responsible if there were a successful attack on America tomorrow, who would be to blame for the failure to prevent that attack?
See, I left it open ended, you can provide any answer you like...
Or you can go back to your blankie...
You prove to be quite the moron.
I already gave you the answer in the 9:21pm post.
The perpetrators would be to blame.
It's always entertaining to watch the Alcoholic Troll Z tie himself in knots with his ridiculous 'arguments', which tend to contradict each other, and then splutter and fart when it's pointed out to him that he's talking out his ass. Check this recent thread
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150707&perpage=40&pagenumber=3
where we get these two statements in defense of his assertion that before we can accept the idea that it is morally indefensible for a 45 year-old man to anally rape a nine year-old child, it is necessary to define the 'criteria' one is using to determine what is too young. He also states in this thread that if a 45 year old man in America anally rapes a nine-year old child because that act is 'a part of his culture', then not only is it legal and morally defensible, but we must strive to protect his right to do so.
First he says
The laws reflect the values and morals of the primary culture...
Then, when questioned about various aspects of his 'argument', he becomes confused and says
....The law doesn't differentiate between the primary or sub cultures, it is blind to the culture aspect
I swear, this is another Alcoholic Relapse a la summer 2007 when he just completely blew a gasket on here.
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=150707&perpage=40&pagenumber=3
where we get these two statements in defense of his assertion that before we can accept the idea that it is morally indefensible for a 45 year-old man to anally rape a nine year-old child, it is necessary to define the 'criteria' one is using to determine what is too young. He also states in this thread that if a 45 year old man in America anally rapes a nine-year old child because that act is 'a part of his culture', then not only is it legal and morally defensible, but we must strive to protect his right to do so.
First he says
The laws reflect the values and morals of the primary culture...
Then, when questioned about various aspects of his 'argument', he becomes confused and says
....The law doesn't differentiate between the primary or sub cultures, it is blind to the culture aspect
I swear, this is another Alcoholic Relapse a la summer 2007 when he just completely blew a gasket on here.
Quote from Landis82:
Do you really believe that Bush is actually responsible for preventing any further attacks after 9/11?
Bush spent > 500 days of his Presidency on VACATION at the Crawford Ranch, Camp David, and Kennebunkport, Maine. That's 25% of his time in office!
And yet according to "Dumbya", his only mistake during his two terms was the "timing" of privatizing Social Security.
Go figure.
Obviously, none of us is in a position to state with certainty why there were no followup attacks. There are only two possible explanations however. One, Osama bin ladin and al qaeda decided not to try to attack us again. Two, the Bush administration thwarted potential attacks.
I choose to believe the latter. Intelligence officials have stated that they used information gained from coercive questioning of high level terrorists to prevent attacks, and I find that highly credible.
Obama is taking a big gamble in appealing to the left wing of the democrat party. If anything happens, whether or not it could have been prevented, he will be severely criticized for dismantling the security system that kept us safe.
It's Clinton II... recall that we had 9/11 because the FBI and CIA were not allowed to talk to each other. Clinton mandated that.
Love the non sequitur:
First this:
"Obviously, none of us is in a position to state with certainty why there were no follow up attacks."
Then this:
" If anything happens, whether or not it could have been prevented, he will be severely criticized for dismantling the security system that kept us safe."
Of it doesn't follow logically from the first statement to the second, but then the mongrels on the right wing are predictably irrational and partisan to a fault...
So you have no certainty why there were no attacks, but you are certain if there are attacks people will blame Obama...
You don't know if the security system Bush put in place kept us safe or not, but if it is still in place today (which it is) and if attacks occur today, damn skippy the Fatman followers won't blame Bush.
I am sure you are right, I am certain the ignorant wimpy anal wart infested, chicken hawk big tub of goo sheeple right wingers crazy muthers dittoheads will blame Obama for anything that happens in America that they don't like...
First this:
"Obviously, none of us is in a position to state with certainty why there were no follow up attacks."
Then this:
" If anything happens, whether or not it could have been prevented, he will be severely criticized for dismantling the security system that kept us safe."
Of it doesn't follow logically from the first statement to the second, but then the mongrels on the right wing are predictably irrational and partisan to a fault...
So you have no certainty why there were no attacks, but you are certain if there are attacks people will blame Obama...
You don't know if the security system Bush put in place kept us safe or not, but if it is still in place today (which it is) and if attacks occur today, damn skippy the Fatman followers won't blame Bush.
I am sure you are right, I am certain the ignorant wimpy anal wart infested, chicken hawk big tub of goo sheeple right wingers crazy muthers dittoheads will blame Obama for anything that happens in America that they don't like...
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
Obviously, none of us is in a position to state with certainty why there were no followup attacks. There are only two possible explanations however. One, Osama bin ladin and al qaeda decided not to try to attack us again. Two, the Bush administration thwarted potential attacks.
I choose to believe the latter. Intelligence officials have stated that they used information gained from coercive questioning of high level terrorists to prevent attacks, and I find that highly credible.
Obama is taking a big gamble in appealing to the left wing of the democrat party. If anything happens, whether or not it could have been prevented, he will be severely criticized for dismantling the security system that kept us safe.