I used to think they....

[Hell_Awaits]

numerous press conferences put out to every network, for starters.

the efforts Clinton made to 'get' Bin Laden are embarrassing, in comparison to Bush's efforts.
this may be because the Clinton administration held the military in such low regard [military personel were forbidden to wear their uniforms in the Clinton White House and high ranking military officials were treated like caddys for Hillary's brothers when they came to visit] and considered terrorism to be a 'police matter,' rather than an act of war.

The military is not going to keep us safe from a terroists attack.

 

[SueNC]

The military is not going to keep us safe from a terroists attack.

not entirely. to keep us completely safe, there needs to be vigilance on the homefront. security checks that are already in play in most airports and train stations are a great start, but unfortunately, political correctness rears it's ugly head and they'll pull an 80 yr. old Irish grandmother out of line to be checked before they'd dare to check Ahmed Ali, with the shifty eyes and the suspicious package strapped to his back. afterall, we wouldnt want to hurt any feelings, would we? :Smug:

the military has done a great job of keeping terrorists hopping and have cut off a lot of the aid that was flowing into the US to fund terrorist operations here.

it all works hand-in-hand. Bush put this ball in play on all fronts.

Clinton did little to nothing.

 

[fah-q]

Fah-Q is my new enemy. Sue at least stays on topic with her talking points. Fah-Q is a master of changing the subject, and never actually wants to focus on what is being discussed.

Typical leftist-cunt response. When someone doesn't agree, or you get owned, they are your enemy. This is too easy.

 

[fah-q]

The military is not going to keep us safe from a terroists attack.

So, we should just roll over and tell the military to go home?

 

[ZeeZooZum]

Typical leftist-cunt response. When someone doesn't agree, or you get owned, they are your enemy. This is too easy.

Oh yeah, it's too easy to talk about CNN when the issue is Fox's "mistake." It's easy to talk about Democrats when the issue Republican corruption. It's easy to be a party hack and a moral relativist who only sees the wrong in other parties and other people without being able to look in the fucking mirror. It's easy to use shallow political distinctions which you don't understand.

What this country needs are people willing to do the hard thinking and working. Clearly, you can't.

 

[fah-q]

Oh yeah, it's too easy to talk about CNN when the issue is Fox's "mistake." It's easy to talk about Democrats when the issue Republican corruption. It's easy to be a party hack and a moral relativist who only sees the wrong in other parties and other people without being able to look in the fucking mirror. It's easy to use shallow political distinctions which you don't understand.

What this country needs are people willing to do the hard thinking and working. Clearly, you can't.

Here is your track record of ignorance.
My original statement - I agree. This "mistake" is inexcusable. It is almost as if it is in response to the multiple "mistakes" that CNN has made. - Where you get all of your drivel from this one statement is beyond me. I am sure it is beyond you as well.

Here is my 2nd statement, where I explain myself, for only your benefit. As, you seem to be the only dolt who needs the smaller classroom setting-
It is my understanding that Fox made the mistake once. The only times it was re-broadcast was when they made statements amending what they had previously broadcast. So, it may have been shown 3 times but, it was only shown once in the context that has all the Dems getting moist.
I didn't bother to do a search but, I don't recall anyone here bringing up the numerous "mistakes" that CNN conveniently makes when reporting on Republicans. I wonder why that is...?

Here is even further explanation, for our scholar having trouble with plain english It has to do with the plain and simple fact that Fox did this once. CNN has pulled shit like this over and over. Ironically, it gets pointed out when Fox does it. Telling, don't you think?

Here, I urge you to go back and re-read. You obviously aren't listening.
Go back, slow down and re-read my post. Then, you may be able to pick up the sarcasm.

I am losing count by now but, at this point, teachers are recommending you be held back a grade.
You don't read everything before you decide to run your mouth do you? I have already explained this 2 times. AGAIN, re-read the posts.This time, do it s-l-o-w-l-y and try to pay attention to what you are reading. If you are still having trouble Corky, find someone to read it to you.

At what point do you decide to stop kicking yourself in the teeth? Call it a day already. The only point you are proving is that you respond before thinking.

 

[ZeeZooZum]

... I'll help you moral relativist.

Here is your track record of ignorance.
My original statement - I agree. This "mistake" is inexcusable. It is almost as if it is in response to the multiple "mistakes" that CNN has made. - Where you get all of your drivel from this one statement is beyond me. I am sure it is beyond you as well.

Here is my 2nd statement, where I explain myself, for only your benefit. As, you seem to be the only dolt who needs the smaller classroom setting-
It is my understanding that Fox made the mistake once. The only times it was re-broadcast was when they made statements amending what they had previously broadcast. So, it may have been shown 3 times but, it was only shown once in the context that has all the Dems getting moist.
I didn't bother to do a search but, I don't recall anyone here bringing up the numerous "mistakes" that CNN conveniently makes when reporting on Republicans. I wonder why that is...?

Here is even further explanation, for our scholar having trouble with plain english It has to do with the plain and simple fact that Fox did this once. CNN has pulled shit like this over and over. Ironically, it gets pointed out when Fox does it. Telling, don't you think?

Here, I urge you to go back and re-read. You obviously aren't listening.
Go back, slow down and re-read my post. Then, you may be able to pick up the sarcasm.

I am losing count by now but, at this point, teachers are recommending you be held back a grade.
You don't read everything before you decide to run your mouth do you? I have already explained this 2 times. AGAIN, re-read the posts.This time, do it s-l-o-w-l-y and try to pay attention to what you are reading. If you are still having trouble Corky, find someone to read it to you.

At what point do you decide to stop kicking yourself in the teeth? Call it a day already. The only point you are proving is that you respond before thinking.

 

[fah-q]

... I'll help you moral relativist.

Morality has nothing to do with my pointing out the truth. Again (what is this the 6th time?) go back and read. I stated that the "mistake" was inexcusable. The quotes indicating that I did not believe it was a mistake. Does everyone have to explain things to you over and over? You would be helping yourself greatly if you stopped eating paint-chips.

 

[gaschamber]

fox news has the hottest girls. in fact im watching it right now as a plane hits a building in upper manhatten.

 

[SueNC]

fox news has the hottest girls. in fact im watching it right now as a plane hits a building in upper manhatten.

i saw something about that. it said the plane was registered to a NY Yankee?

i dont follow baseball. did they have a bad season?

 

[fah-q]

It was Cory Lidle. He was a starter for the Yankees. Looks to have been an accident. R.I.P.

 

[SueNC]

It was Cory Lidle. He was a starter for the Yankees. Looks to have been an accident. R.I.P.

i think they're saying he seems to have run out of gas.

and does anybody else find it creepy that if you flip today's date over...
10/11/06, you get 09/11/01?

 

[MyHatred]

and does anybody else find it creepy that if you flip today's date over...
10/11/06, you get 09/11/01?

Now you are starting to sound like a liberal conspiracy theorist

 

[SueNC]

Now you are starting to sound like a liberal conspiracy theorist

NNOOOOO!!

i'm not suggesting anything. i dont think there was some kind of mysterious plot behind this. it was just a tragic accident.

i actually saw the 9/11 date comparison somewhere else and found it a really creepy coincidence... but that's all it is.

 

[MyHatred]

I know.


I was just messing with you.

 

[fah-q]

And when you turn TULSA around, it's A SLUT. When you turn A SLUT around, it costs about $50.00. . . -Larry the Cable Guy.

 

[SueNC]

And when you turn TULSA around, it's A SLUT. When you turn A SLUT around, it costs about $50.00. . . -Larry the Cable Guy.

yup. Larry knows Tulsa. :Smug: