Hey Righties

[Toxick]

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

So it's not okay for forestal to attack Palin's kids (and I agree it's not) but it is okay to make jokes about the September 11th terrorist attacks?

I hardly think the 747 one-liner was making light of 9/11. It was a joke about wiping out the Senate - who, in all fairness, deserve to be made fun of - brutally and relentlessly.

Yeah a 747 was mentioned... Boo frickity hoo.

You're reaching. Unclench.

Originally Posted by AndyMarquisLIVE

You righties are hypocrites.

Stop me if you've heard this! A pot and a kettle walk into a bar....

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

why would it matter and what are you insinuating?

If the Muslim's entire purpose is to convert EVERYone to Islam, or destroy them, I think it would be importatnt to know who they are supporting in the Presidential Election.

And don't tell me not all Muslim's feel that way, as it is written, so shall it be.

Why would Muslim's feel Obama is the better choice to further their agenda?

[migtig]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

with that logic, bush must have seem like a seriously weak leader if they tried to attack at least 3 locations in our country shortly after he was elected.

Considering that they were in this country, established and operating while Clinton was in charge, I'd say nope. They had to do it then, because Bush's policy was more strict than Clinton's. Not to mention Okalahoma City was on Clinton's watch as well.

Look at Reagan, this country was attacked at the embassys when he was president. Then he bombed the heck out of Libya, said no more negotiating with terrorists, and wow...amazing results.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by itsbob

If the Muslim's entire purpose is to convert EVERYone to Islam, or destroy them, I think it would be importatnt to know who they are supporting in the Presidential Election.

And don't tell me not all Muslim's feel that way, as it is written, so shall it be.

Why would Muslim's feel Obama is the better choice to further their agenda?

it is the mission of most religions to convert everyone possible.

your assertion that all muslims want to destroy all nonmuslims is retarded.

and religious freedom is religious freedom. why do you want to stifle american muslims?

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Lugnut

You mean like this post?

Actually, Oyster Guy is not a Republican, if his posts are any indication.

[tommyjones]

Originally Posted by migtig

Considering that they were in this country, established and operating while Clinton was in charge, I'd say nope. They had to do it then, because Bush's policy was more strict than Clinton's. Not to mention Okalahoma City was on Clinton's watch as well.

Look at Reagan, this country was attacked at the embassys when he was president. Then he bombed the heck out of Libya, said no more negotiating with terrorists, and wow...amazing results.

so using that logic, any terrorist attacks that come on US soil in the next presidents term will be bushes fault.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

with that logic, bush must have seem like a seriously weak leader if they tried to attack at least 3 locations in our country shortly after he was elected.

Apaprently he fooled them..

THANK GOD Bush was our President during the time of need, and not Gore.

He'd still be calculating the environmental effect of a 5oo pund bomb detonation in Iraq, on a dandelion in Alburqurque, and writing yet another tersely written memo to Osama and the UN>

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

it is the mission of most religions to convert everyone possible.

your assertion that all muslims want to destroy all nonmuslims is retarded.

and religious freedom is religious freedom. why do you want to stifle american muslims?

I find it hysterical, after all your posts attacking Christians, that you are now standing up for religious freedom when it concerns Muslims.

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

so using that logic, any terrorist attacks that come on US soil in the next presidents term will be bushes fault.

No, it'll be Obama's fault.

And if McCain or Palin is President, it'll be Clinton's fault.

[itsbob]

Originally Posted by tommyjones

so using that logic, any terrorist attacks that come on US soil in the next presidents term will be bushes fault.

Seeing how there were no further successful attacks on US soil since 9/11 I'd say there is a flaw in your logic.