Cussin / BD: where do things stand ???

docmercer--banned · Apr 26, 2006

Patriot obviously has no interest in the proposal based on his actions today ....

Will you please notify Wil as this act is getting old and for someone that bitches about me I find his actions today to be nothing more than an attempt to "egg" me on so he can run to Wil

Rules are Rules ... I want a response from the Core if they expect me to "behave" and that includes Redneckman/Dawf/Xpanda/Bblight and Deatheatscracker

PatPatriot · Apr 26, 2006

<TABLE cellPadding=33 width=900 bgColor=#e8f2ff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><DL><DT>[SIZE=+2]Carpe Mañana: The clinton Terrorism Policy
[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]('Can we kill 'em tomorrow?')[/SIZE]
<DD>
[SIZE=-2]FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME![/SIZE][SIZE=-2][/SIZE]

<DD>by Mia T, 04.18.06

<DT><CENTER><MAP name=mapTOM><AREA shape=RECT coords=0,0,811,381 href="http://www.deletehillary.com/tomorrow.swf"></MAP>

"In this interdependent world, we should still have a preference for peace over war,'' [clinton] said.

He also reflected on his own decisions when, as commander in chief, he was urged to launch a military strike.<SUP>6</SUP>

"I always thought of Senator Fulbright and the terrible quagmire in Vietnam and how many times we sent more soldiers and found ourselves in a hole and kept digging because we didn't want to look like we were weak,'' he said.

"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years:[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?'"

"If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak,<SUP>1</SUP> and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way,'' he said.

[SIZE=-1]bill clinton
[/SIZE]

</TD></TR><TR><TD>
[SIZE=+2]<MAP name=map12110312459876S><AREA shape=RECT coords=0,0,319,239 href="http://members.aol.com/n0clint0ns/onterrorF.swf"></MAP>

[/SIZE]Bill Clinton, the Sultan of Swing, gave an interesting speech last week, apropos foreign policy: "Anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years: 'Can we kill 'em tomorrow?' If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

The trouble was tomorrow never came - from the first World Trade Center attack to Khobar Towers to the African embassy bombings to the USS Cole. Manana is not a policy. The Iranians are merely the latest to understand that.
<DL><DT>[SIZE=-1]Reason Enough To Act[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]
BY MARK STEYN
[/SIZE][SIZE=-2]The New York Sun
April 17, 2006
[/SIZE]</DT></DL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>

[SIZE=+2]<MAP name=map4180655432><AREA shape=RECT coords=0,0,149,142 href="http://www.deletehillary.com"></MAP>

or the clintons[/SIZE] to succeed, Bush must fail, which means America must lose THE WAR.

Make no mistake: The undermining of Bush and <MAP name=map3><AREA shape=RECT alt="" coords=0,0,185,179 href="http://www.deletehillary.com/terrorism.htm"></MAP>

America is the number one clinton imperative.<SUP>2</SUP>

[SIZE=+1]DEFINING DEVIANCY DOWN[/SIZE]

The clintons typically prop themselves up by revising others down.<SUP>3</SUP> Direct, upward revision of their own legacy is virtually impossible to pull off,[SIZE=+1]<SUP>4</SUP>[/SIZE] given their wide-reaching unsavory renown.<SUP>5</SUP>

But the clintons' inflated sense of self causes them from time to time to dispense with rational thought and attempt to do just this; and so we get the clinton mañanas.

[SIZE=+1]PURPOSEFUL FAILURE[/SIZE]

First clinton claimed he got impeached on purpose. To save the Constitution, he said. Now he claims he failed to confront terrorism on purpose. Because we can kill 'em tomorrow, he says.

NOTE: The clintons did fail to confront terrorism on purpose, but not for the reason stated. (Indeed, contrary to clinton's absurd argument, the clintons' feckless inaction (and feckless action, for that matter,) were precisely the sign of weakness that emboldened bin Laden and al Qaeda.<SUP>1</SUP> Bin Laden told us so himself.

<SUP>
</SUP>[SIZE=+1]<TABLE cellPadding=33 bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
Lopez: [SIZE=+2]In sum, how many times did Bill Clinton lose bin Laden?[/SIZE]

Miniter:[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]Here's a rundown. The Clinton administration:

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.
16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

</CENTER></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[/SIZE]
<CENTER>[SIZE=+1]MORE[/SIZE]</CENTER>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</CENTER></DT></DL></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<HR align=left width=780>

[SIZE=+1]1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]

<TABLE cellPadding=33 width=902 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
[SIZE=+2]BIN LADEN FINGERS CLINTON FOR TERROR SUCCESS[/SIZE][SIZE=+2] [/SIZE](SEE FOOTAGE)
THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON IS TO THE OVAL OFFICE

[SIZE=+1][/SIZE][SIZE=+1]INTERVIEW:[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] Osama bin Laden[/SIZE][SIZE=+1] [/SIZE](may 1998)

In the first part of this interview which occurred in May 1998, a little over two months before the U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Osama bin Laden answers questions posed to him by some of his followers at his mountaintop camp in southern Afghanistan. In the latter part of the interview, ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions.

[SIZE=+1]Describe the situation when your men took down the American forces in Somalia.[/SIZE]

After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim....

[SIZE=+1]The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?[/SIZE]

I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration....

<CENTER> </CENTER>

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>[/SIZE]
<TABLE width=910 bgColor=#ffffff border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
[SIZE=+2]

[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]WHY DID BILL CLINTON IGNORE TERRORISM?
[/SIZE]Was it simply the constraints of his liberal mindset, or was it something even more threatening to our national security?

by Mia T, 8.18.05

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)
thanx to jla and Wolverine for the audio
</CENTER></DT></DL>
<TABLE cellPadding=99 width=900 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>[SIZE=+2]<MAP name=map4010488776634><AREA shape=RECT coords=0,0,143,137 href="http://madhillary.blogspot.com"></MAP>

[/SIZE]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

JoeContrarian · Apr 26, 2006

"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years:' Can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

Brutal!

CAPNCRUNCH · Apr 26, 2006

Pat, you forget who was President on 9/11, don't you? And how he was huddling in Crawford with Enron executives when he was supposed to be doing his job - defending the United States.

cussin'it · Apr 26, 2006

Pat my Clinton lovin bruddah. Please dude, will you abide. I have a nice Hillary avatar in mind for you...?

Doc you hijacked his thread on the wind farms earlier. Behave or I'll slap ya with a nice Rove or Coulter avatar?

CAPNCRUNCH · Apr 26, 2006

Joe Contrarian said:
"So anytime somebody said in my presidency, 'If you don't do this people will think you're weak,' I always asked the same question for eight years:' Can we kill 'em tomorrow? If we can kill 'em tomorrow, then we're not weak, and we might be wise enough to try to find an alternative way."

Brutal!

Maybe you and some other Canadiens cared in the summer of 2001 Joe, but in the United States, noone, including GWB cared.

Masxmenos · Apr 26, 2006

doc mercer said:
Patriot obviously has no interest in the proposal based on his actions today ....

Wil you please notify Wil as this act is getting old and for someone
that bitches about me I find his actions today to be nothing more
than an attempt to "egg" me on so he can run to Wil

I saw what Patriot did earlier today. I will say he doesn't do it that often but it was SPAM. I will promise you this. If you promise to stay under 5 threads owned by yourself for a whole day and stay on topic with the forum threads of others for a full day AND not call any your your enemies on the right "Patriotless" or "Baseheadless" or "femnark" or "bake some cookies" etc...

I PROMISE, I will complain to Wil for the FIRST time ever as a poster at theRX. But if you can't make it 24-hours starting Midnight EST (1 hour ahead of you) on Thursday April 27th to Friday April 28th then I will not go to bat for you, nor will I offer this option again in the future. I dispise "telling on people" I was raised to keep my mouth shut.

Understand for those 24-hours Basehead and Patriot may try to "egg" you on but if you can show me that you don't retaliate for 24-hours... I will definitely go to bat for you.

My goal is to regain the integrity and quality of the poly forum and it has gone to poo poo in the last month IMHO.

So Doc, "Deal or No Deal?"

BDiz...

docmercer--banned · Apr 26, 2006

BD: I made a proposal yesterday

I saw no response from outside of Right Side so I guess the only things that interests those folks is to do what they feel is needed to keep the storm brewing

I will agree to Rules if they are only enforced and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES .... and obviously Patriot (see, I am teachable) has only goal in mind and doubt that goal is going to happen in this lifetime

docmercer--banned · Apr 26, 2006

BD: You are missing the point ... sorry, Charlie but I dont agree to shit unless I see the CORE also agrees

Sorry, no deal where it is a one way street so get ALL PARTIES to agree and I do mean ALL PARTIES (Basehead /Patriot/Xpanda/Bblight/ Redneckman/Deatheatsacracker)

AGAIN, ALL PARTIES WILL RECOGNIZE ON THIS FORUM THE AGREEMENT OR THERE IS NO AGREEMENT

Fair enough?

Masxmenos · Apr 26, 2006

doc mercer said:
I will agree to Rules if they are only enforced and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES .... and obviously Patriot (see, I am teachable) has only goal in mind and doubt that goal is going to happen in this lifetime

But Doc... not to single you out, this is a deal between you and me not anyone else. I want you to show me that you are contributing to good causes of the forum and the Patriot and Basehead are not. Having them attack you while our deal is in place only solidfies your point you are trying to make. You NEED them to attack you during the deal between me and you, that way I have evidence to show Wil that you were trying to be a positive contributing member to the forum and they were not.

So this deal has nothing to do with the others. Only you and me, if you want my support.:toast:

BDiz..

cussin'it · Apr 26, 2006

doc mercer said:
BD: I made a proposal yesterday

I saw no response from outside of Right Side so I guess the only things that interests those folks is to do what they feel is needed to keep the storm brewing

I will agree to Rules if they are only enforced and agreed to BY BOTH PARTIES .... and obviously Patriot (see, I am teachable) has only goal in mind and doubt that goal is going to happen in this lifetime

Doc of course I know you will try. Pat I sense is making a point and it has to do with interjecting in a thread and taking it way off course. Let's really try to stay within the topic. Didn't you have anything or opinion specifically about the Cape Cod windfarm proposal?? You diverted it. He's getting revenge. Stay out of his threads and I'm sure he'll do likewise.