You can't deny Bush this:

[Pa(b)st Prime]

Quote from jonbig04:

Wow. Experiment complete.

I didn't start this thread to brag on bush. I started it for one reason only: to see how many people would try to deny a blatant and positive fact just because it carries positive connotations towards the Bush administration. I now am of the opinion that liberals hold their biases just as strongly and as blindly as conservatives. Thanks guys

Of course they're delusional. The Democrats did a remarkable, unchallanged flip-flop on Iraq. They've had a Presidential candidate, 3 consecutive VEEP candidates, two Senate majority leaders, Bill Clinton's wife and Tony Blair all vote for war in Iraq but within months it became Bush's war.

What's funnier-or more duplicitous-is these libs are the FIRST people to say"stupid conservative sheeple watching faux news just don't get it." LMAO. As if the left gets it. One quarter of the Democrats "serving" in the Senate are Jewish. Gee, wonder why the biggest issues campaign after campaign are chiefly about which party can crawl deeper up Israel's ass?

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from wjk:

Fair enough. I will not defend Bush on this one. It took 9/11 to get the action. Like I said in an earlier post, there is no shortage of blame.

I would say that Clinton did a good job on terrorism, or at least a competent job and that blaming him would be somewhat unfair.

We could have used cruise missiles or a strike force, as he was in our sights. If we were searching, these should have been in place.

Now you're reaching. First off, Afghanistan is landlocked. Picture us launching cruise missiles:

A) Towards Russia

B) Over other countries.

To say that can get ugly is the understatement of the century. No, that kind of thing has to be very carefully organized. Unmanned aerial drones are the way to go.

And Bush had UAV's with missiles. What did he do with them? Nothing.

I am not a supporter of the Iraq decision. We should have finished our work in Afghanistan. Just my opinion.

Clearly that's true. Bush botched that decision among many others.

It was actually pretty funny, but why did he do it?

According to people who knew him, it's because he's astonishingly disorganized.

I feel that way because they had him in their sights, and for whatever reason, they were not able to take him out. Did they even try? As far as Bush, I feel he snapped to after 9/11, but after Afghanistan some things took a turn that I didn't understand. Like implementing the patriot act while at the same time leaving the borders open.

Or how about being offered Bin Laden by the Taliban and saying "no." Now that's pretty astonishing. There's always this story about how Clinton was offered Bin Laden by a third party through another government and didn't pursue it, but here was an offer that has been verified, is public, and he turned it down.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jonbig04:

Wow. Experiment complete.

I didn't start this thread to brag on bush. I started it for one reason only: to see how many people would try to deny a blatant and positive fact just because it carries positive connotations towards the Bush administration. I now am of the opinion that liberals hold their biases just as strongly and as blindly as conservatives. Thanks guys

I think that's true for humanity in general.

Nevertheless, your original statement, that there have been no attacks since 9/11, has been proven false.

And as others have pointed out, as framed it's wildly biased as it excludes the major attack itself.

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from Pa(b)st Prime:

More stupidity. If NK didn't have designs on the South then why were they developing nukes?

Yes, that is certainly stupid.

If the US doesn't have designs on Mexico, why does it have nukes?

What's funnier-or more duplicitous-is these libs are the FIRST people to say"stupid conservative sheeple watching faux news just don't get it." LMAO. As if the left gets it. One quarter of the Democrats "serving" in the Senate are Jewish.

The nice thing about forum posters is that they self-classify with their own writing, making it easy to distinguish the rational from the nuts to the downright insane.

Serious question: are you being truthful when you say that you make money as a trader? The reason I ask is because you're clearly bigoted, short-tempered, willfully blind and irrational -- but I've had a theory for a while that that wouldn't exclude someone from making money. In fact, those character traits might even be helpful to make you profitable.

Are you?

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I think that's true for humanity in general.

Nevertheless, your original statement, that there have been no attacks since 9/11, has been proven false.

And as others have pointed out, as framed it's wildly biased as it excludes the major attack itself.

lol its not false and you know it. I may or may not address the arguments that others posed, honestly most of them seemed so ludicrous that its a waste of time. On september 11 4 plans were hijacked, 2 of which destroyed the WTC buildings, 1 of which hit the pentagon. Nothing at all like that has happened since. I don't know why i have to keep restating it. You can take it apart and be as technical as you want but we all know its true.

 

[arealpissedgoy]

Quote from jonbig04:

I'm sure you will come in here with your factless conspiracy theories and your arguments based off of something you once heard a friends brother say, but thats ok.

Oh and before we get to it, I am voting Obama, so hopefully that will deflect SOME of the conservative bashing trash talk.

Since 9/11/01 (7 years ago for the slower ones) there has not been another attack on US soil by terrorists.

This is because:

A- The terrorists haven't tried. (I don't see how you could agree with this one, but I don't put it beyond some of you).

B- The Bush administration has done a great job in creating organizations, and whatever else they do, and in doing so have kept us attack free for the past 7 years.

The funding for the terrorists came directly from then Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandars wifes bank accounts.

Bandar is a "soul-friend" of Bush.

now Bandar is security chief of SA. He was implicated on a 2 Billion kick-back scheme for UK arms to SA

There is enough circumstantial evidence that proves Bush knew what was coming.

Which means you are missing option (C)

The perpetrator(s) achieved the primary goal.

He got selected to office again and was able to pass un-constitutional laws. He was able to use the US armed forces as his own private army to secure oil and gas rights in foreign lands.

He and his supporters have accomplished all their desired goals. There is no need for a repeat.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from arealpissedgoy:

The funding for the terrorists came directly from then Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandars wifes bank accounts.

Bandar is a "soul-friend" of Bush.

now Bandar is security chief of SA. He was implicated on a 2 Billion kick-back scheme for UK arms to SA

There is enough circumstantial evidence that proves Bush knew what was coming.

Which means you are missing option (C)

The perpetrator(s) achieved the primary goal.

He got selected to office again and was able to pass un-constitutional laws. He was able to use the US armed forces as his own private army to secure oil and gas rights in foreign lands.

He and his supporters have accomplished all their desired goals. There is no need for a repeat.

Ah, about time the conspiracy theories surfaced

 

[Pa(b)st Prime]

My trading is like my politics. I throw bombs downfield. Some years I'm Tom Brady some years I'm getting picked off like Grossman. My theory kind of jives with yours. Most of my friends from the floor are crazy out of the box thinkers-more like artists than scientists. IMO a big mistake people make is over thinking the trade. I just try to go opposite how I think most folks are positioned. Often the crowd is really right. But when they're wrong I'm golden.

Quote from bigdavediode:

Yes, that is certainly stupid.

If the US doesn't have designs on Mexico, why does it have nukes?



The nice thing about forum posters is that they self-classify with their own writing, making it easy to distinguish the rational from the nuts to the downright insane.

Serious question: are you being truthful when you say that you make money as a trader? The reason I ask is because you're clearly bigoted, short-tempered, willfully blind and irrational -- but I've had a theory for a while that that wouldn't exclude someone from making money. In fact, those character traits might even be helpful to make you profitable.

Are you?

 

[wjk]

Quote from bigdavediode:

I would say that Clinton did a good job on terrorism, or at least a competent job and that blaming him would be somewhat unfair.



Now you're reaching. First off, Afghanistan is landlocked. Picture us launching cruise missiles:

A) Towards Russia

B) Over other countries.

To say that can get ugly is the understatement of the century. No, that kind of thing has to be very carefully organized. Unmanned aerial drones are the way to go.

Actually, Clinton did use cruise missiles on a camp in Afghanistan (and Sudan) earlier in that year (1998), but did not use them in the incident we are discussing because of fear of collateral damage, or so goes the story. Unfortunately, the way terrorists like to surround themselves with innocents, collateral damage is almost unavoidable.

If I remember correctly, we used a rather large inventory of missiles on the tent camp, and certainly Russia was informed ahead of time. Firing 1 or 2 to take out OBL wouldn't really be a stretch at all.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationw...2.story?page=2&coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines

 

[bigdavediode]

Quote from jonbig04:

lol its not false and you know it. I may or may not address the arguments that others posed, honestly most of them seemed so ludicrous that its a waste of time. On september 11 4 plans were hijacked, 2 of which destroyed the WTC buildings, 1 of which hit the pentagon. Nothing at all like that has happened since. I don't know why i have to keep restating it. You can take it apart and be as technical as you want but we all know its true.

If you exclude the WTC and then exclude the Pentagon, exclude the anthrax attacks, exclude the embassy attacks and then limit it to the US then there haven't been any attacks.

Here's your original statement: "Since 9/11/01 (7 years ago for the slower ones) there has not been another attack on US soil by terrorists. "

I listed a half dozen or so. There's plenty of others -- you can list them online at the Terrorism Knowledge Base.