ClutchFans - Kerry: I was for politicizing OBL before I was against it.

basso

11-01-2004, 05:28 PM

"I think it's unfortunate that anybody puts Osama bin Laden into any political context in the United States' election. I'm outraged that he has appeared. I'm outraged that he inserts himself in any kind of way into the electoral process of America."--John Kerry, interview with Peter Jennings, Oct. 31

"I regret that when George Bush had the opportunity in Afghanistan at Tora Bora, he didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden. He outsourced the job to Afghan warlords. I would never have done that. I think it was an enormous mistake, and we're paying the price for that today."--John Kerry, reacting to the bin Laden videotape, Oct. 29

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2004, 05:35 PM

There is a difference between politicizing OBL, and pointing out failures, especially when the other side is his highlighting its stance on terror.

IT would be ludicrous to think that Kerry won't point out mistakes this administration has made regarding the WOT while the current administration is talking about how important it is that they are re-elected because of their stance on the war on terror.

basso

11-01-2004, 05:38 PM

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
There is a difference between politicizing OBL, and pointing out failures, especially when the other side is his highlighting its stance on terror.

IT would be ludicrous to think that Kerry won't point out mistakes this administration has made regarding the WOT while the current administration is talking about how important it is that they are re-elected because of their stance on the war on terror.

except, as is made abundantly clear here (http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85988), the outsourcing jab is nonsense.

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2004, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by basso
except, as is made abundantly clear here (http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=85988), the outsourcing jab is nonsense.

I read that article and responded to it. The article a bunch of gunk. Whether or not it was technically outsourced isn't as important as the fact the troops were there, and So were some Al-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda folks got away. It wasn't handled well.

basso

11-01-2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I read that article and responded to it. The article a bunch of gunk. Whether or not it was technically outsourced isn't as important as the fact the troops were there, and So were some Al-Qaeda. The Al-Qaeda folks got away. It wasn't handled well.

and yet, the commanders on the ground would do it exactly the same way, if they had to do it all over again. do you know better than the deputy-commander of central command?

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by basso
and yet, the commanders on the ground would do it exactly the same way, if they had to do it all over again. do you know better than the deputy-commander of central command?

I know better than to do it the exact same way again.

ZRB

11-01-2004, 05:52 PM

Are you still going to be posting this crap after W gives his concession speech?

Faos

11-01-2004, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by ZRB
Are you still going to be posting this crap after W gives his concession speech?

Are sure it's called a "concession speech" when you leave after two terms?

:)

basso

11-01-2004, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by FranchiseBlade
I know better than to do it the exact same way again.

maybe you should put your money where your cursor is and enlist?

KingCheetah

11-01-2004, 08:05 PM

basso: "I am a message board spammer."

SamFisher

11-01-2004, 08:08 PM

basso: "I beat up 12 disabled hookers today"

Harrisment

11-01-2004, 08:47 PM

Basso: I like to create misleading thread titles

Jeff

11-01-2004, 09:34 PM

Seriously, basso, you need to work on your titles.

When you put...

Falwell: I Worship Satan

The thread should have a story where he ACTUALLY SAYS THAT. Your titles are not only misleading, they irritate people - something we could use less of in the D&D.

basso

11-01-2004, 09:38 PM

Originally posted by Jeff
Seriously, basso, you need to work on your titles.

When you put...

Falwell: I Worship Satan

The thread should have a story where he ACTUALLY SAYS THAT. Your titles are not only misleading, they irritate people - something we could use less of in the D&D.

[Basso]: Ok.

sTWO

11-01-2004, 09:43 PM

basso,

I think most of the people here are liberal unfortunately, either that, or they want to give terrorism a chance and elect Kerry.

What you highlighted is just one of dozens of matters for which Kerry has flip-flopped in recent memory.

Tomorrow we'll have a clear choice between staying the course in the war on terror, or giving in to Bin Laden and his cronies by changing leaders in order to appease them.

Let's hope America makes the right decision.

RIET

11-01-2004, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
basso,

I think most of the people here are liberal unfortunately, either that, or they want to give terrorism a chance and elect Kerry.

What you highlighted is just one of dozens of matters for which Kerry has flip-flopped in recent memory.

Tomorrow we'll have a clear choice between staying the course in the war on terror, or giving in to Bin Laden and his cronies by changing leaders in order to appease them.

Let's hope America makes the right decision.

Yes. Let's hope the country makes the right decision. A decision that benefits all Americans and not just socially conservative white men and the wealthy.

sTWO

11-01-2004, 09:54 PM

RIET,

To use old cliches about Republicans only being "socially conservative white men and wealthy" is flat out ignorant as well as misleading.

This president has the most minorities in his cabinet in history. This president has increased funding towards minority students' educational needs to record levels.
This president has protected all Americans from terrorists striking again after 9/11.

Stop with the tired old cliches and class warfare - you're smarter than that.

SamFisher

11-01-2004, 09:56 PM

Originally posted by sTWO

Tomorrow we'll have a clear choice between staying the course in the war on terror, or giving in to Bin Laden and his cronies by changing leaders in order to appease them.

Let's hope America makes the right decision.

Yes, tomorrow we face a clear choice, a choice between purging stupidity, incompetence, and arrogance in favor of accountablilty, and reelecting a satanic, child murdering, three time felon who pees sitting down and sucks the filling out of twinkies

Since we're just making random sh-t up I decided to take some license.

RIET

11-01-2004, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
RIET,

To use old cliches about Republicans only being "socially conservative white men and wealthy" is flat out ignorant as well as misleading.

This president has the most minorities in his cabinet in history. This president has increased funding towards minority students' educational needs to record levels.
This president has protected all Americans from terrorists striking again after 9/11.

Stop with the tired old cliches and class warfare - you're smarter than that.

Really?

Look at the demographics. The maps do not lie.

The president's strongholds are the traditionally conservative south and midwest. It's not any clearer than that.

These are the same people who went to church on Sundays and protested desgregation on Mondays. His most loyal constituents are the former Dixiecrats.

The president and his token appointees mean nothing.

sTWO

11-01-2004, 10:05 PM

*Sigh*

Mr.Fisher obviously doesn't keep up with the news:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Bin Laden clearly threatens any state that votes for Bush.

To REIT:

So you're saying that since the majority of Bush's support comes from white people, those are the only ones he serves?

Your blanketed statements wreak of ignorance.

Btw, I'm glad you consider the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor "token appointees".

RIET

11-01-2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
To REIT:

So you're saying that since the majority of Bush's support comes from white people, those are the only ones he serves?

Your blanketed statements wreak of ignorance.

Btw, I'm glad you consider the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor "token appointees".

Your naivete wreaks of ignorance. You don't believe a candidate will best serve those who are most loyal to him?

This is not a partisan issue. This is simple logic.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by SamFisher
three time felon who pees sitting down

Kerry ist ein sitzpinkler? :eek:

Sir Jackie Chiles

11-01-2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by basso
Kerry ist ein sitzpinkler? :eek:

Where did you learn that word? :D

FranchiseBlade

11-01-2004, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
*Sigh*

Mr.Fisher obviously doesn't keep up with the news:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Bin Laden clearly threatens any state that votes for Bush.

To REIT:

So you're saying that since the majority of Bush's support comes from white people, those are the only ones he serves?

Your blanketed statements wreak of ignorance.

Btw, I'm glad you consider the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor "token appointees".

Actually I have seen some analysis of that interpretation. In the dialect of Arabic that Bin Laden uses there is only the word for State that was used. So there isn't the distinction that it might mean an individual state.

Bin Laden meant state in the national sense. This was on Countdown on MSNBC. Anyway that NY Post article is by no means definitive.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by RIET
Your naivete wreaks of ignorance. You don't believe a candidate will best serve those who are most loyal to him?

This is not a partisan issue. This is simple logic.

he's served me pretty well, and i'm not a social conservative...and what make you think I'm white?
http://netchord.com/stephen/comthumb.jpeg

SamFisher

11-01-2004, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
*Sigh*

Mr.Fisher obviously doesn't keep up with the news:

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/33124.htm

Bin Laden clearly threatens any state that votes for Bush.

To REIT:

So you're saying that since the majority of Bush's support comes from white people, those are the only ones he serves?

Your blanketed statements wreak of ignorance.

Btw, I'm glad you consider the Secretary of State and National Security Advisor "token appointees".

Ahh, Mr. TWO, you're facing a logic deficit stemming back to your original unsupported post. Should I explain why? Or can we go Socratic on this one? Or maybe I just did?

basso

11-01-2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by basso
Kerry ist ein sitzpinkler? :eek:

spent some time over there. in fact, i was in bonn for the einigkeit. quite a scene.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
Where did you learn that word? :D

last post was meant to respond to this one...

RIET

11-01-2004, 10:22 PM

Originally posted by basso
he's served me pretty well, and i'm not a social conservative...
http://netchord.com/stephen/comthumb.jpeg

Now you're just lying.

sTWO

11-01-2004, 10:23 PM

Your naivete wreaks of ignorance. You don't believe a candidate will best serve those who are most loyal to him?

I stated earlier how Bush has appointed more minorities to cabinet spots than any President before him, and you responded by calling them "token appointees". If you consider the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor to be irrelevant, then you're in need of some education my friend.

Then, you avoided addressing the fact that Bush's policies have increased educational spending toward minorities to record highs (significantly higher than Clinton!).

So you ignored these facts from the get-go and prompted to insult two prominent positions in the cabinet by deeming them pointless. Clearly you are frustrated that you don't have any facts on the matter.

Now you try to lash out by playing the race card. This is a tired and old Democratic trick. Bush has served all Americans well during his term, and I could have cited more proof of his aid toward minorities if I didn't have to get some much-needed rest right now.

Please improve your political IQ before you take on these types of conversations in the future. It's just plain embarassing not to address facts or even present any.

Good night, and may America make the right decision tomorrow.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by RIET
Now you're just lying.

about what, being white? how would you define "socially conseravtive?" go ahead. let's see how i measure up...

RIET

11-01-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by sTWO
I stated earlier how Bush has appointed more minorities to cabinet spots than any President before him, and you responded by calling them "token appointees". If you consider the Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor to be irrelevant, then you're in need of some education my friend.

Then, you avoided addressing the fact that Bush's policies have increased educational spending toward minorities to record highs (significantly higher than Clinton!).

So you ignored these facts from the get-go and prompted to insult two prominent positions in the cabinet by deeming them pointless. Clearly you are frustrated that you don't have any facts on the matter.

Now you try to lash out by playing the race card. This is a tired and old Democratic trick. Bush has served all Americans well during his term, and I could have cited more proof of his aid toward minorities if I didn't have to get some much-needed rest right now.

Please improve your political IQ before you take on these types of conversations in the future. It's just plain embarassing not to address facts or even present any.

Good night, and may America make the right decision tomorrow.

Try googling Condeleeza Rice and Aunt Jemima.

Hmmm, the masses are wrong as usual :rolleyes:

Sir Jackie Chiles

11-01-2004, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by basso
spent some time over there. in fact, i was in bonn for the einigkeit. quite a scene.

I am from Bonn.

RIET

11-01-2004, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by basso
about what, being white? how would you define "socially conseravtive?" go ahead. let's see how i measure up...

I never said anything about you being white.

As far as socially conservative, it's res ipsa.

If you deny this, you're a bigger liar than I thought.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Sir Jackie Chiles
I am from Bonn.

i was there for 2 months in 1990, and again in '92. stayed in the altstadt each time. spent a lot of time soaking in die therme.

basso

11-01-2004, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by RIET
I never said anything about you being white.

As far as socially conservative, it's res ipsa.

If you deny this, you're a bigger liar than I thought.

really? once again, i challenge you, define, on your terms, "socially conservative." let's see how self evident it is.

RIET

11-01-2004, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by basso
really? once again, i challenge you, define, on your terms, "socially conservative." let's see how self evident it is.

Yes, yes, youre right. You're not socially conservative.

You're just a liar.

ima_drummer2k

11-01-2004, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by RIET
These are the same people who went to church on Sundays and protested desgregation on Mondays. His most loyal constituents are the former Dixiecrats.
Sigh... I love being pigeonholed.

I'm a social moderate who only goes to church on holidays. I make about as much money as a high school teacher. I work two jobs so I can pay my mortgage every month. I am FAR from rich but that doesn't mean I resent people who are. Oh yeah. I'm also not a racist. :rolleyes: I'm voting for Bush. Sorry if that messes up your theory.

The president and his token appointees mean nothing.
LOL, W could appoint Jesse Jackson as his new VP and he would still be accused of making "token" appointees.