Obama needs a quick refresher course in Cold War history

[eekee 182]

eekes you still dont look at the fact that in 1196 the CIA (dont know if you know who that is) had a sniper with bin laden's head in the cross hairs. Clinton told them not to take the shot. it could have all ended back then. but i dont expect you to know the history of that because you are a bush hater. so i rest my case on the al quada with you

OK, do you know what? You don't need to insult anybody else's intelligence to make an argument. I know what the CIA is. Please refrain from being condescending, especially when you can't be bothered to check your posts for things such as "1196" vs "1996."

1996 is what i meant. you blame bush for 911 but it could have been stopped long before. here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

I never blamed Bush for 9/11. Read more carefully. i was just refuting the idea that a Democrat in the White House would automatically mean that the USA would be attacked by terrorists, considering that 9/11 occurred with a Republican in the White House.

Edited May 27, 2008 by eekee

[GALAXY 0]

if you look into the time line of terrorists. they have hit us more during the democrats and also harder than when republicans are in office. you just cant get over the fact you are liberal. and cant understand that more terrorists attacks have been stopped under bush than under democrats.

[eekee 182]

if you look into the time line of terrorists. they have hit us more during the democrats and also harder than when republicans are in office. you just cant get over the fact you are liberal. and cant understand that more terrorists attacks have been stopped under bush than under democrats.

As I said before, stop being condescending (and personal). If you want your point of view to be taken seriously, present it in a constructive, logical manner.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

if you look into the time line of terrorists. they have hit us more during the democrats and also harder than when republicans are in office. you just cant get over the fact you are liberal. and cant understand that more terrorists attacks have been stopped under bush than under democrats.

As I said before, stop being condescending (and personal). If you want your point of view to be taken seriously, present it in a constructive, logical manner.

No kidding. JB, maybe you're a bit intense waiting for your fiancee, but chill out and show some respect.

[Sheriff Uling 3]

Even if Sen. Obama becomes president and nominates supreme court justices, the senate still must be vote to confirm the nomination. So there is a vetting process to weed out unlikely canidates no matter who becomes president.

[Marc and Olga 0]

eekes you still dont look at the fact that in 1996 the CIA (dont know if you know who that is) had a sniper with bin laden's head in the cross hairs. Clinton told them not to take the shot. it could have all ended back then. but i dont expect you to know the history of that because you are a bush hater. so i rest my case on the al quada with you

Calling you on this...source please.

I mean calling a fact you SHOULD have a source, correct?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

if you look into the time line of terrorists. they have hit us more during the democrats and also harder than when republicans are in office. you just cant get over the fact you are liberal. and cant understand that more terrorists attacks have been stopped under bush than under democrats.

That's fuzzy reasoning - seeing as organised terrorism against the US is only a relatively recent phenomenon.

[SteveLaura 0]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

[HAL 9000 96]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

You win a barrel of oil!!!

[SteveLaura 0]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

You win a barrel of oil!!!

Cool. I think I'll sell it. For euros.

[HAL 9000 96]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

You win a barrel of oil!!!

Cool. I think I'll sell it. For euros.

And then use the money to stimulate to US economy...

[GALAXY 0]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

wrong, one of the lead planners was from canada. but is currently in afghanistan

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

wrong, one of the lead planners was from canada. but is currently in afghanistan

How is he wrong? You said "one of".

That implies surely that there were more than one. Surely something we don't need to speculate on - we know there were many people involved.

[HAL 9000 96]

here is a question for you, what country was one of the leading plan makers for 911 from?

Ooh, I know this one!

Saudia Arabia.

What do I win?

wrong, one of the lead planners was from canada. but is currently in afghanistan

How is he wrong? You said "one of".

That implies surely that there were more than one. Surely something we don't need to speculate on - we know there were many people involved.

Its the "invade" Canada because they planned 911 excuse- don't you think so?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's pretty weird if you ask me. Canada and Saudi Arabia aren't even remotely comparable in that respect.