It pains me to start National Hot Dog Month on a negative note, but it must be said.
Apparently the terrorist car bombers in the UK are using the flame retardant bumper stickers these days.
Its very telling that a leading candidate for the dem nod refuses to acknowledge terrorism as reality but rather yet a tool to make political points. It now makes all the sense in the world to me why he has to have his wife fight his battles for him..... he is a pussy, and may very well be a bona fide meat gazer.
EE-Aww!!
27 comments:
Yeah, like George W never had a dick in his mouth.
The nonchalant manner in which you make that statement leads me to believe that perhaps there is a ring of familiarity behind it.
Its commendable how you fruits defend each other.
it's beneath you, donkeyhue, to try to compete with colterskank when it comes to spewing homophobic hyperbole.
I'm not the one who woke up with hot dogs on his mind. Just admit you lust after John Edwards.
Anita lighten up, Ive said worse.
Gary stop outing yourself, thats your business... a dog is always just a dog.
Now if you two can get over my slur selection, please defend how there are those (alot of them) that share your ideology in your party that do not believe that terrorism exists, or worse yet only hold that position to play contrarian to Bush, that is, when they are not blaming Bush for said non-existent terrorism.
Nobody has ever said that terrorism does not exist. Next question?
john edwards does not in any way deny that terrorism exists. and he doesn't "blame bush for said non-existent terrorism."
he simply states, as many people, even people who share your ideology, that the manner in which bush has waged his 'war on terror' has made the world a less safe place.
i.e., it is backfiring.
You knew damn well what I meant so cut the shit, stop arguing the semantics.
“The War on Terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan.”
-- John Edwards
Or just browse the Daily Kos on any given day.
There was terrorism before Bush, there was terrorism before Afghanistan and Iraq, it existed before the "War on Terror", and it will be around long after if you liberal pussies have your way.
Anita you are correct that it isnt going as well as planned which is to be expected when facing a faceless enemy, but that does not mean it should not be fought, as your side would have us do.
wrong.
the dems have repeatedly downplayed the threat. edwards especially. clinton treated it as a law enforcement issue even though his own secretary of state madeline (half)bright said that osama has declared war on the U.S. in 1998. The current crop of dems are 60's hippie leftovers who used to burn their draft cards and participate in sit ins. They're weak and can't be trusted to lead a nation at war.
i meant gary and anita are wrong obviously. donkey and i must have posted at the same time.
it's not a matter of whether terrorism should be fought, but a matter of how.
and john edwards is right. the bush administration and some republicans have made "the war on terror" a cliche, a marketing tool, a fund raising, vote getting tool. look at rudy giuliani. he's nothing if not a walking cliche.
this administration and it's department of homeland security have done very, very little to shore up the security weak points of this nation --- here in the 50 states. and i think that is a shame and a disgrace.
If that is the case, and an argument can made that it is, dont you think that its much better than downplaying the threat and saying it should not be fought to begin with to score contrarian political points?
But if its true what you are saying that the need to fight is not in question, riddle me this.... how have the dems suggested we do so?
How any reasonable person can argue for diplomacy and appeasement is beyond me considering that your Grand Poobah Clinton actually sent troops to fight alongside the moslem terrorist group KLA in Bosnia and they still bombed us, but then again they attacked us before that as well so at least they were consistent. Can we expect the same collusion from a Hillary Presidency?
I'll give u this anita, more should be done, starting with the borders that should be closed completely!
However, to say that they have done very very little defies logic. They must be doing something because we haven't had an attack since 9/11. We know of some of the attacks that have been thwarted and i'm sure there are plenty that we haven't heard about.
That being said, again, we need to shut down the borders NOW, and we need to round up as many illegal aliens from muslim countries as we can and start deporting them. It's racial or religious profiling but it works and it should be done.
Unfortunately, the ACLU will fight tooth and nail against this sensible action and i suspect the dems will be right there with them.
I'm sure you and gary agree however that we are most vulnerable at our southern border and it should be closed immediately right?
Also, since we all acknowledge the FACT that we are indeed at war, then why do the dems scream for the closure of gitmo? prisoners of war are held until the conclusion of said war. This war isn't over. Also, prisoners of war don't get to plead their case before civilian courts, so why are the dems crying for this right to be bestowed on our enemies?
The bottom line is that the dems don't take this war seriously. Even after the SECOND and more tragic attack on the world trade center, and the attack on the USS Cole and the attacks at our embassies in Africa etc. etc. etc. the dems still want to play defense and as Donkey said, none of them have a plan to fight the war.
The only things i've heard so far include what we're already doing, and surrender. That's it. Am i missing anything?
yes, i do believe we are extremely vulnerable at our southern borders. and i agree that immigration policy has an important element of security to it over and above the other issues involved.
but i also think we are equally, if not more vulnerable at our ports, at our nuclear plants, at locations where trains and containers filled with highly volatile chemicals (such as chlorine) sit virtually unprotected, at our train and subway stations, you name it. and not a whole lot has been done about any of those. port security is a joke.
what have the dems done. let me see. give me a minute. oh yeah, schumer's done a good bit of complaining. yeah. that's it. i cannot defend them.
and what will the clintons do when the get back in office? i hate to say it, but i could see hillary trying to prove her masculinity and being the first prez to push the nuclear button.
hillary can't win. I have said it before and i'll say it again, i hope she wins the dem nomination.
I'm not going to argue the port situation because i assume you're right (although i don't know the current state of security there) but there is no question that our borders are a worse situation. BOTH borders. And we can easily do something about it. Starting with a wall.
To say that a wall wouldn't work (many dems have said so) is ridiculous. It's already working in san diego (duncan hunter's district) where the illegal crossings have gone from a flood to almost nothing, and in Israel where the attacks are down by a huge percentage (i dont remember the exact %)
Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem? You mean by finding the bad guys who bombed the World Trade Center and bringing them to justice? As opposed to letting them get away in Afghanistan after 9/11?
Yes gary, that's correct he considered it a law enforcement issue. Why would you want to argue that point when you know for a fact that he said so himself?
maybe osama escaped, maybe he's dead. we don't know for sure do we? What does it matter?
The point is that it IS a war.
That's what's so disgusting about the edwards in particlular. We know for sure that he's either stupid, or he's using the war as a political tool.
You can't say the same about Rudy or anyone else who acknowledges the need to win this war. They may be full of shit, or they may be patriots. Either way they're in favor of defeating our enemies, and edwards is in favor of defeat.
by the way gary and anita, you are in favor of shutting down the border in order to help secure our country right? or are you in the Bush camp and want open borders and amnesty for all illegals?
i think "shutting" down our borders would be a little difficult (and unwise) ... but i am for secure borders including competent border control and screening. i don't support amnesty for all illegals. that's a quite foolhearty measure, in my opinion.
none of which has anything to do with john edwards purported 'gayness' ... subliminal blogging via hot dogs notwithstanding.
nothing against walls, but the wall that's currently proposed wouldn't do much to stop illegals.
watch the segment from the penn & teller bullshit episode on immigration where they construct the fence.
three teams of two are assigned to go under, through, and over the wall, respectively. all do it in less than 5 minutes.
the most effective way of reducing illegal immigration is standing up to mexico and demanding they take care of their own people, or they can face economic consequences.
but there's not a single serious contender for president who'd have the balls to do it.
oh, yeah, and john edwards is totally gay.
his wife's a beard.
a guy as good looking as edwards should be able to do better than that. (remember all the extra baggage she was carrying during the 2004 campaign? blech.)
uh, i hate to remind you there dsky, but the woman has had cancer for several years. and as far as i'm concerned she looks pretty damn good for all she's been through.
i'm usually joking here but i have to say i find your comment kind of cruel and tasteless.
Clinton's approach worked better than Bush's, didn't it? Clinton put them in jail, Bush is just creating more terrorists.
As for the southern border and illegal immigration: I favor beefing up the border patrol, in order to keep the numbers of illegal immigrants down to a manageable level. As illegal immigrants serve an economic purpose, and large corporations hire them, one might think that a guest worker program makes sense. But I suppose then they would have to pay them more or give them benefits.
Lordy, Lordy, I do not think that Edwards is gay, nor do I care iffin' he is or isn't. Some Republican polititians have been/ are gay too, Mark Foley, anyone.
Edwards is just an unpleasant skinny lawyer with a hair helmet. He will never ever be elected to the role of President, ever. He just looks too weird. Why would a rich lawyer want to be President?
As for any homoerotic activities involving Bush, yummy. A little Broke Back going on between Bush and a hot Mexican ranch hand back in Texas. Miss C would jump right in between that sexy man on man action!
Donsky, i don't know what the standards are at UPS university, but in my world a penn & teller comedy routine doesn't actually mean much. As i stated earlier the wall works in San Diego, and it works in Israel. These are actually real world situations.
Gary, clinton's approach would have been perfect if they were the only terrorists, but as we know they weren't.
To say that Bush is "just creating more terrorists" is idiotic.
Is it your contention that if we just left them alone there wouldn't be any more terrorists and they would just leave us alone?
Finally, the cost of illegal aliens to local communities is tremendous and far outweighs their benefits, which by the way goes almost completely to big business.
But Rhino you have to see them. One guy is real tall and talks alot and the other is shorter, balding and never speaks. They arent your usual comic/magicians. Its an interesting dynamic and lends them an air of credibility. CoughBULLSHITCough.
Subliminal Anita? You mean the picture of four hot dogs? I do not think you know what that word means. But more importantly dont be an asshole and try to ruin one of my favorite foods for me, its frickin bbq season for fucks sake.
You know, its my fault for calling Edwards a fag. I should have known our lib readers would focus on that instead of my point which was to illustrate the pusillanimousity of the liberal mindset regarding terrorism. For fucks sake the dem presidential candidates cant even bring themselves to admit who our enemy is. Heres a clue, its not.. Bush was wrong.
...and in closing let me add that the entire democrat party are fags.
Post a Comment