Kim Jung Ir Threatens Nucrear Weapons In Merciress Offensive

[AZGrizFan]

Et tu, Brute?

I suck other peoples dicks almost exclusively for sexual pleasure and yours was too tempting to pass up.

Interesting.

[UNI88]

I suck other peoples dicks almost exclusively for sexual pleasure and yours was too tempting to pass up.

Interesting.

Does this mean that I've struck a nerve and you're beaten?

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting.

Does this mean that I've struck a nerve and you're beaten?

No. I just couldn't pass up the irony of it all.

[UNI88]

Does this mean that I've struck a nerve and you're beaten?

No. I just couldn't pass up the irony of it all.

I will say that I LMAO at the changes you made to my post. Comedic value was high.

[SeattleGriz]

F(ck that goofy-haired piece of sh!t. Let him try...and when his poverty stricken tin plated little country has recovered from the EMP strikes, the first thing NK's KCNA TV will be broadcasting under it's new ownership is Jung Ir swinging by his neck from a gallow in Seoul.

Either Obama/Clinton have implemented the most inept foreign policy in the history of our relations with NK, or they've intentionally allowed the debacle to boil over in an attempt to divert public attention from their failed domestic economic policies.

I have been saying that ever since I learned about the EBomb. Kim Jung is going to push his one button and then crap his pants and fall back in it, once he realizes his shat has been destroyed before it made it anywhere.

[grizzaholic]

Word is, is that lil' Kim's son had a little secret meeting with China last week. So he could tell the China emperor that he had been appointed heir to lil' Kim.

[Cap'n Cat]

Kim is just misunderstood. Hillary will soften his hardcore dictatin' ass.

[houndawg]

F(ck that goofy-haired piece of sh!t. Let him try...and when his poverty stricken tin plated little country has recovered from the EMP strikes, the first thing NK's KCNA TV will be broadcasting under it's new ownership is Jung Ir swinging by his neck from a gallow in Seoul.

Either Obama/Clinton have implemented the most inept foreign policy in the history of our relations with NK, or they've intentionally allowed the debacle to boil over in an attempt to divert public attention from their failed domestic economic policies.

I have been saying that ever since I learned about the EBomb. Kim Jung is going to push his one button and then crap his pants and fall back in it, once he realizes his shat has been destroyed before it made it anywhere.

He ain't gonna do squat, he's just an ambitious tyrant playing the only card he has.

[travelinman67]

Kim is just misunderstood. Hillary will soften his hardcore dictatin' ass.

Hillary couldn't soften a dry sponge. She's so caught up in "Bill'ism" (talk the talk...but won't dare attempt to walk the walk), the only change from when Bush left to when Hillary leaves in 3 years will be the world's "favoribility" rating towards the U.S. The countries who further themselves at the economic or environmental expense of their world partners ARE LOVING Obama/Hillary's policies...

...one of appeasement and threat, not backed up with any effective or persuasive acts. Hillary State policies are antithetical to Teddy's "Walk softly..." foreign policy. In action, Hillary (and Obama) have clearly demonstrated the anti-corollary, "Walk loudly, and carry nothing to back it up."

If the DumbyDonks think pro-active defense and foreign policy can lead to conflict and American casualties, wait and watch how many American's lose their lives to terrorist states like Iran and North Korea once they establish a small-scale nuclear device.

On our current course, it is inevitable.

[houndawg]

Kim is just misunderstood. Hillary will soften his hardcore dictatin' ass.

Hillary couldn't soften a dry sponge. She's so caught up in "Bill'ism" (talk the talk...but won't dare attempt to walk the walk), the only change from when Bush left to when Hillary leaves in 3 years will be the world's "favoribility" rating towards the U.S. The countries who further themselves at the economic or environmental expense of their world partners ARE LOVING Obama/Hillary's policies...

...one of appeasement and threat, not backed up with any effective or persuasive acts. Hillary State policies are antithetical to Teddy's "Walk softly..." foreign policy. In action, Hillary (and Obama) have clearly demonstrated the anti-corollary, "Walk loudly, and carry nothing to back it up."

If the DumbyDonks think pro-active defense and foreign policy can lead to conflict and American casualties, wait and watch how many American's lose their lives to terrorist states like Iran and North Korea once they establish a small-scale nuclear device.

On our current course, it is inevitable.

It was your boy W who played with himself in the corner while A.Q. Khan sold nuclear technology to NK.

[BlueHen86]

Hillary couldn't soften a dry sponge. She's so caught up in "Bill'ism" (talk the talk...but won't dare attempt to walk the walk), the only change from when Bush left to when Hillary leaves in 3 years will be the world's "favoribility" rating towards the U.S. The countries who further themselves at the economic or environmental expense of their world partners ARE LOVING Obama/Hillary's policies...

...one of appeasement and threat, not backed up with any effective or persuasive acts. Hillary State policies are antithetical to Teddy's "Walk softly..." foreign policy. In action, Hillary (and Obama) have clearly demonstrated the anti-corollary, "Walk loudly, and carry nothing to back it up."

If the DumbyDonks think pro-active defense and foreign policy can lead to conflict and American casualties, wait and watch how many American's lose their lives to terrorist states like Iran and North Korea once they establish a small-scale nuclear device.

On our current course, it is inevitable.

It was your boy W who played with himself in the corner while A.Q. Khan sold nuclear technology to NK.

[SeattleGriz]

It was your boy W who played with himself in the corner while A.Q. Khan sold nuclear technology to NK.

Whoa. whoa. whoa.

Was it not Bill Clinton and Mad Halfbright who orchestrated this mess in the first place? Didn't they hand shake, hug and agree that N Korea would not pursue nuclear technology in return for money and light water reactors?

Talk about revisionist history.

For what it is worth, this shows you cannot reason with a nutjob. Clinton tried the carrot and Bush tried the stick. Neither worked.

Also, I remember people bitching about that unilateralist cowboy Bush because he didn't want one on one talks with N Korea, but insisted on multi party talks. Bush did exactly what the pussy libs wanted and he is savaged over it? FUK. That is messed up.

[houndawg]

It was your boy W who played with himself in the corner while A.Q. Khan sold nuclear technology to NK.

Whoa. whoa. whoa.

Was it not Bill Clinton and Mad Halfbright who orchestrated this mess in the first place? Didn't they hand shake, hug and agree that N Korea would not pursue nuclear technology in return for money and light water reactors?

Talk about revisionist history.

For what it is worth, this shows you cannot reason with a nutjob. Clinton tried the carrot and Bush tried the stick. Neither worked.

Also, I remember people bitching about that unilateralist cowboy Bush because he didn't want one on one talks with N Korea, but insisted on multi party talks. Bush did exactly what the pussy libs wanted and he is savaged over it? FUK. That is messed up.

Takes a revisionist to know one, I guess.

People were bitching about Bobo because he talked big (as usual) and then sat still for A.Q. Khans act, like the chickenhawk pussy he and his ilk are.

And people wonder why Iran doesn't think we're serious.

[BlueHen86]

It was your boy W who played with himself in the corner while A.Q. Khan sold nuclear technology to NK.

Whoa. whoa. whoa.

Was it not Bill Clinton and Mad Halfbright who orchestrated this mess in the first place? Didn't they hand shake, hug and agree that N Korea would not pursue nuclear technology in return for money and light water reactors?

Talk about revisionist history.

For what it is worth, this shows you cannot reason with a nutjob. Clinton tried the carrot and Bush tried the stick. Neither worked.

Also, I remember people bitching about that unilateralist cowboy Bush because he didn't want one on one talks with N Korea, but insisted on multi party talks. Bush did exactly what the pussy libs wanted and he is savaged over it? FUK. That is messed up.

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

[UNI88]

Hillary couldn't soften a dry sponge.

Hillary makes me soft.

[BlueHen86]

Hillary couldn't soften a dry sponge.

Hillary makes me soft.

[SeattleGriz]

Whoa. whoa. whoa.

Was it not Bill Clinton and Mad Halfbright who orchestrated this mess in the first place? Didn't they hand shake, hug and agree that N Korea would not pursue nuclear technology in return for money and light water reactors?

Talk about revisionist history.

For what it is worth, this shows you cannot reason with a nutjob. Clinton tried the carrot and Bush tried the stick. Neither worked.

Also, I remember people bitching about that unilateralist cowboy Bush because he didn't want one on one talks with N Korea, but insisted on multi party talks. Bush did exactly what the pussy libs wanted and he is savaged over it? FUK. That is messed up.

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

Wait. Isn't that the way it supposed to work here in the Poli lounge. Make a point, then blame the other party you don't align with even if it makes no sense?

[grizzaholic]

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

Wait. Isn't that the way it supposed to work here in the Poli lounge. Make a point, then blame the other party you don't align with even if it makes no sense?

It is only ok if you are a DONK.

[Grizalltheway]

Wait. Isn't that the way it supposed to work here in the Poli lounge. Make a point, then blame the other party you don't align with even if it makes no sense?

It is only ok if you are a DONK.

You're learning, Grizza.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Whoa. whoa. whoa.

Was it not Bill Clinton and Mad Halfbright who orchestrated this mess in the first place? Didn't they hand shake, hug and agree that N Korea would not pursue nuclear technology in return for money and light water reactors?

Talk about revisionist history.

For what it is worth, this shows you cannot reason with a nutjob. Clinton tried the carrot and Bush tried the stick. Neither worked.

Also, I remember people bitching about that unilateralist cowboy Bush because he didn't want one on one talks with N Korea, but insisted on multi party talks. Bush did exactly what the pussy libs wanted and he is savaged over it? FUK. That is messed up.

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

BH I don't see him blaming the libs although that can be taken out of it I suppose. I see that he is making a proper defense against an assertion of what Bush did and that it's Bush's fault. After reading Hounds comment last night I was thinking the same thing. None of that side of the aisle wanted Bush making any more steps that would put us closer to another conflict but after he's gone and the problem still persists it is the same group now saying that he sat idly by? This is the typical bullshit that both sides do in choosing from whatever basket fits them best at the current time. On this issue I think SeaGriz has a pretty clear line of thinking.

[AZGrizFan]

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

BH I don't see him blaming the libs although that can be taken out of it I suppose. I see that he is making a proper defense against an assertion of what Bush did and that it's Bush's fault. After reading Hounds comment last night I was thinking the same thing. None of that side of the aisle wanted Bush making any more steps that would put us closer to another conflict but after he's gone and the problem still persists it is the same group now saying that he sat idly by? This is the typical bullshit that both sides do in choosing from whatever basket fits them best at the current time. On this issue I think SeaGriz has a pretty clear line of thinking.

Of course he does. He's a conservative.

[BlueHen86]

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

Wait. Isn't that the way it supposed to work here in the Poli lounge. Make a point, then blame the other party you don't align with even if it makes no sense?

Yeah, you are right. I suck at this whole poli lounge thing, it's all your fault.

[BlueHen86]

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

BH I don't see him blaming the libs although that can be taken out of it I suppose. I see that he is making a proper defense against an assertion of what Bush did and that it's Bush's fault. After reading Hounds comment last night I was thinking the same thing. None of that side of the aisle wanted Bush making any more steps that would put us closer to another conflict but after he's gone and the problem still persists it is the same group now saying that he sat idly by? This is the typical bullshit that both sides do in choosing from whatever basket fits them best at the current time. On this issue I think SeaGriz has a pretty clear line of thinking.

I agree.

The funny thing is, so far our North Korea policy has worked. North Korea sabre rattles frequently, we buy them off and things get better. I don't like the policy, to me it's a modern day version of the danegeld, eventually we may not be able to meet their price. I see it as one of those "pay me now" or "pay me later" things.

[houndawg]

SG - you raise some good points, but you always want to blame things on the libs at the end of the day. It's not that easy, there are a lot of f--k ups in Washington, and they sit on both sides of the aisle.

BH I don't see him blaming the libs although that can be taken out of it I suppose. I see that he is making a proper defense against an assertion of what Bush did and that it's Bush's fault. After reading Hounds comment last night I was thinking the same thing. None of that side of the aisle wanted Bush making any more steps that would put us closer to another conflict but after he's gone and the problem still persists it is the same group now saying that he sat idly by? This is the typical bullshit that both sides do in choosing from whatever basket fits them best at the current time. On this issue I think SeaGriz has a pretty clear line of thinking.

But that's exactly what he did by refusing to hold up the US end of the Framework Agreement of 1994 which had kept North Koreas plutonium encased in concrete for eight years and UN monitors at their plutonium reactor 24/7. There is nothing gray here folks; the North Koreans upheld their end of the agreement for eight years. The Bush administration broke the agreement by failing to normalize relations and we were back to square one. Sorry, amigo, but SeattleGriz does not have a clear line of thinking here and in fact doesn't seem to remember at all why we are where we are with respect to North Korea today.

The Republicans simply aren't capable of thinking outside the military box when it comes to conquering a country. Normalize relations with North Korea and we'll have them eating out of our hand in a decade. Once the internet is established there, it is only a matter of time until they are ours.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

BH I don't see him blaming the libs although that can be taken out of it I suppose. I see that he is making a proper defense against an assertion of what Bush did and that it's Bush's fault. After reading Hounds comment last night I was thinking the same thing. None of that side of the aisle wanted Bush making any more steps that would put us closer to another conflict but after he's gone and the problem still persists it is the same group now saying that he sat idly by? This is the typical bullshit that both sides do in choosing from whatever basket fits them best at the current time. On this issue I think SeaGriz has a pretty clear line of thinking.

But that's exactly what he did by refusing to hold up the US end of the Framework Agreement of 1994 which had kept North Koreas plutonium encased in concrete for eight years and UN monitors at their plutonium reactor 24/7. There is nothing gray here folks; the North Koreans upheld their end of the agreement for eight years. The Bush administration broke the agreement by failing to normalize relations and we were back to square one. Sorry, amigo, but SeattleGriz does not have a clear line of thinking here and in fact doesn't seem to remember at all why we are where we are with respect to North Korea today.

The Republicans simply aren't capable of thinking outside the military box when it comes to conquering a country. Normalize relations with North Korea and we'll have them eating out of our hand in a decade. Once the internet is established there, it is only a matter of time until they are ours.

Ok I see what you're saying now. For some reason I was thinking you meant that Bush didn't put Military pressure on when he should have been and sat idly by while he was developing the capability instead of putting a stop to it with some sort of force. I get what you're saying now.

That is a problem with the two parties exchanging power on some of these issues. When one party makes some progress or appears to be making progress on it's own behalf and the other doesn't see it that way they get in office and change the course and then both blame the other for the fuck up. If a policy were CLEARLY working it would be foolhardy to change it but if it isn't clearly working then you wouldn't expect Obama to continue Bush's "failed" policy and you can't expect that Bush would have continued Clinton's "failed" policy. Thus the plausible deniability of the system and the ability to argue about who is responsible for this or that.

And the band played on...