Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Discuss.

The clueless Obama Administration.

Keep watching...it's only gonna get worse.

I voted RIM/Google/Apple in a 3 way command and conquer of the world. Trust me..... this day will come.

Skynet

The black hole known as Janeane Garofalo's "intellect"...

travelinman67 wrote:The clueless Obama Administration.

Keep watching...it's only gonna get worse.

Now T-man... I'm shocked
you relentlessly attack people for doing what you just did in your post... (no changing the subject)

Start your own thread, don't hi-jack others to make your point otherwise you're just a common hypocrite..!!!
and I know you pretend to have such high standards of debate but you regularly show contradiction to your stated beliefs in debate technique...

wideright82 wrote:I voted RIM/Google/Apple in a 3 way command and conquer of the world. Trust me..... this day will come.

Amen to that.................









...........as I type a message in blackberry messenger, download songs from itunes and google search for "fountain day girls albany"..............

Cleets Part 2 wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:The clueless Obama Administration.

Keep watching...it's only gonna get worse.

Now T-man... I'm shocked
you relentlessly attack people for doing what you just did in your post... (no changing the subject)

Start your own thread, don't hi-jack others to make your point otherwise you're just a common hypocrite..!!!
and I know you pretend to have such high standards of debate but you regularly show contradiction to your stated beliefs in debate technique...

The question posed by this thread was asked in the past tense. I, like others, chose neither, but proposed a third present tense alternative.

You singled out my suggestion, yet did not assail others for proposing the same.

Hypocrite?

Look in the mirror.

BTW... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204249/posts

travelinman67 wrote:

Cleets Part 2 wrote:
Now T-man... I'm shocked
you relentlessly attack people for doing what you just did in your post... (no changing the subject)

Start your own thread, don't hi-jack others to make your point otherwise you're just a common hypocrite..!!!
and I know you pretend to have such high standards of debate but you regularly show contradiction to your stated beliefs in debate technique...

The question posed by this thread was asked in the past tense. I, like others, chose neither, but proposed a third present tense alternative.

You singled out my suggestion, yet did not assail others for proposing the same.

Hypocrite?

Look in the mirror.

BTW... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2204249/posts

yours was the first one I read... and you seem to take EXTREME issue when others do what you just did
Note: Your posting behavior is against your very own policy.. arrest yourself

Saddam supported terrorists.
Bush fought terrorists.

I think thats an easy one.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Saddam supported terrorists.
Bush supported terrorists.

I think thats an easy one.

Not so easy...

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Saddam supported terrorists.
Bush fought terrorists.

I think thats an easy one.

Nice try Lee Greenwood. Do you happen to know which country most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

Sauidi

WTAG wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Saddam supported terrorists.
Bush fought terrorists.

I think thats an easy one.

Nice try Lee Greenwood. Do you happen to know which country most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

Saudi Arabia.

But he SUPPORTED the terrorist group Al Queda. ( game them ammo and weapons )

I did say supported, not organized or is this just another liberal putting words in my mouth.

And thanks for the compiment, Im honored to called Lee Greenwood, cause like him, IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

Thanks again for the compliment Bill Maher.

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Nice try Lee Greenwood. Do you happen to know which country most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

Saudi Arabia.

But he SUPPORTED the terrorist group Al Queda. ( game them ammo and weapons )

I did say supported, not organized or is this just another liberal putting words in my mouth.

And thanks for the compiment, Im honored to called Lee Greenwood, cause like him, IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

Thanks again for the compliment Bill Maher.

Your point? We gave weapons to Osama bin Laden in the 80s to help him fight the Russians.

And last time I checked, the only weapons al-Qaeda used against us were airplanes.

WTAG wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Saudi Arabia.

But he SUPPORTED the terrorist group Al Queda. ( game them ammo and weapons )

I did say supported, not organized or is this just another liberal putting words in my mouth.

And thanks for the compiment, Im honored to called Lee Greenwood, cause like him, IM PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN.

Thanks again for the compliment Bill Maher.

Your point? We gave weapons to Osama bin Laden in the 80s to help him fight the Russians.

And last time I checked, the only weapons al-Qaeda used against us were airplanes.

Its not my fault you havent been paying any attention since 9/11

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Your point? We gave weapons to Osama bin Laden in the 80s to help him fight the Russians.

And last time I checked, the only weapons al-Qaeda used against us were airplanes.

Its not my fault you havent been paying any attention since 9/11

Been paying plenty of attention. We rightfully went after them in Afganistan. But we did not finish the job. Instead, Bush decided to go after Saddam, who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, and did not support a single terrorist that threatened the United States.

Now, because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's ineptitude in conducting a war, Al-Queda is a greater threat to the world than in was 8 years ago.

Heck ofa job, Bushie.

WTAG wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:Saddam supported terrorists.
Bush fought terrorists.

I think thats an easy one.

Nice try Lee Greenwood. Do you happen to know which country most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

What should we have done, WTAG? Invade Saudi Arabia?

native wrote:

WTAG wrote:
Nice try Lee Greenwood. Do you happen to know which country most of the 9/11 hijackers were from?

What should we have done, WTAG? Invade Saudi Arabia?

What do you mean "invade" Military is already there.

And that would have made more sense than invading Iraqistan

After some thought, I chose the Bush Administration.

Saddam was definitely a regional threat, but outside of his immediate neighbors he was in no position to hurt anyone.

The Bush Admin gets the edge because he invaded two countries and was in a position to invade more if nedded. Bush had more potential to threaten the world.

And yes...using my logic I would also have to vote for Obama over Saddam.

dbackjon wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
Its not my fault you havent been paying any attention since 9/11

Been paying plenty of attention. We rightfully went after them in Afganistan. But we did not finish the job. Instead, Bush decided to go after Saddam, who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, and did not support a single terrorist that threatened the United States.

Now, because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's ineptitude in conducting a war, Al-Queda is a greater threat to the world than in was 8 years ago.

Heck ofa job, Bushie.

jon, you and I don't agree on that much politically...but in Air Force Fighter speak...SHACK

For those wondering, that means he hit the target dead on with that post...

We had an opportunity to take out OBL and al-Qaeda...but Bush et al had a serious case of ADD and took us into Iraq...based on intel that everyone (including Bush) except Cheney admits was faulty...

Now, al-Qaeda has recovered a lot of their ability at least regionally and we need to divert resources back to Afghanistan to try and finish the job...

dbackjon wrote:

Wildcat Ryan wrote:
Its not my fault you havent been paying any attention since 9/11

Been paying plenty of attention. We rightfully went after them in Afganistan. But we did not finish the job. Instead, Bush decided to go after Saddam, who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, and did not support a single terrorist that threatened the United States.

Now, because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's ineptitude in conducting a war, Al-Queda is a greater threat to the world than in was 8 years ago.

Heck ofa job, Bushie.

Apparently not, if you havent noticed, and by your post you havent. We are still fighting them in Afganistan, its the democrats who want to withdraw our troops out of Afg, and in doing so we will lose, we havent lost the war (yet). But as soon as we withdraw all troops, we will have lost the war, which is what the democrats want to happen.

And I dissagree, how can you say terrorism is a greater threat now than it was 8 years ago, 9/11 happened 8 years ago, and we havent be attacked since, (until Obama the apologist took office and one of our cargo ships was hi-jacked) You might not like him, but Bush kept our country safe. And now Obama is going to erase all that, by putting the CIA on trial, just for doing their jobs and keeping our country safe, who cares what kind of interogation methods we used on them they worked, the CIA saved Los Angeles from being attacked, by putting the agents who did the interogation on trial, he is dishonoring the military and the victoms of 9/11. Actually maybe I do agree with you, now that Obama wants to get rid of the interogation methods we now have no way to know what they are planning, so maybe we are in more trouble.

And another thing, where is the outrage?

The Patriot Act that all of you hated and opposed so much is still being used today.

Col Hogan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Been paying plenty of attention. We rightfully went after them in Afganistan. But we did not finish the job. Instead, Bush decided to go after Saddam, who had NOTHING TO DO with 9/11, and did not support a single terrorist that threatened the United States.

Now, because of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's ineptitude in conducting a war, Al-Queda is a greater threat to the world than in was 8 years ago.

Heck ofa job, Bushie.

jon, you and I don't agree on that much politically...but in Air Force Fighter speak...SHACK

For those wondering, that means he hit the target dead on with that post...

We had an opportunity to take out OBL and al-Qaeda...but Bush et al had a serious case of ADD and took us into Iraq...based on intel that everyone (including Bush) except Cheney admits was faulty...

Now, al-Qaeda has recovered a lot of their ability at least regionally and we need to divert resources back to Afghanistan to try and finish the job...

Thats right Bill Clinton was offered him twice.

BlueHen86 wrote:After some thought, I chose the Bush Administration.

Saddam was definitely a regional threat, but outside of his immediate neighbors he was in no position to hurt anyone.

The Bush Admin gets the edge because he invaded two countries and was in a position to invade more if nedded. Bush had more potential to threaten the world.

And yes...using my logic I would also have to vote for Obama over Saddam.

I guess the sucker punch we took on 9/11 didnt disturb "world peace"

I guess you should have put Vladmir Putin on that list since he invaded Georgia, but no, thats Bush's fault to isnt it?

Wildcat Ryan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:
jon, you and I don't agree on that much politically...but in Air Force Fighter speak...SHACK

For those wondering, that means he hit the target dead on with that post...

We had an opportunity to take out OBL and al-Qaeda...but Bush et al had a serious case of ADD and took us into Iraq...based on intel that everyone (including Bush) except Cheney admits was faulty...

Now, al-Qaeda has recovered a lot of their ability at least regionally and we need to divert resources back to Afghanistan to try and finish the job...

Thats right Bill Clinton was offered him twice.

Don't deflect what I said...I voted for Bush and he screwed up...BIG TIME...I'm not here defending Clinton the low-life...

Now, try again and this time FOCUS on what I posted...