Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 No one watches the liberal news anymore. Remember?Also, it was Palin herself that said we should attack Iran.Joe Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.”Difference?Biden could vote to make his opinion happen.Palin can wish anything in the world but she is completely powerless.So does it scare you more that Biden is a heartbeat away from being in control? Link to post Share on other sites
loogie 115 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 So does it scare you more that Biden is a heartbeat away from being in control?Obama's heart strong like bull.And I think Biden wouldn't attack Iran anyways. Hopefully, he understands that we can only attack so many sovereign nations every decade or so. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,751 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Obama's heart strong like bull.And I think Biden wouldn't attack Iran anyways. Hopefully, he understands that we can only attack so many sovereign nations every decade or so. One could say the same about Palin, no? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 One could say the same about Palin, no?No. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,751 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 No.Yes one could. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Yes one could.Nope. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Nope.Yup.what are we talking about? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Yup.AgreeThe lefties are once again telling us that they know the inner-most thoughts and feelings of a person they have never met. Therefore they can tell us exactly how Palin would do as VP, when they are still wiping egg off their face for telling us how awesome Obama was going to be"Quick, give him a Nobel Peace Prize now for the amazing things he's going to do in the future."Their track record is really sad, yet it doesn't deter them from telling us that this time..they really know because John Stewart told them Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 AgreeThe lefties are once again telling us that they know the inner-most thoughts and feelings of a person they have never met. Therefore they can tell us exactly how Palin would do as VP, when they are still wiping egg off their face for telling us how awesome Obama was going to be"Quick, give him a Nobel Peace Prize now for the amazing things he's going to do in the future."Their track record is really sad, yet it doesn't deter them from telling us that this time..they really know because John Stewart told them So, we should trust the right after giving us George Bush? Sweet track record! I'll take Clinton and Obama over Bush and Son.You do realize that people in America did not give him the Nobel Prize right?I merely assume Sarah Palin does not really understand things since her comprehension of how the first amendment works is so off base. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 NoEdit: Did I miss the boat?Edit 2: What were we talking about again? Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 So, we should trust the right after giving us George Bush? Sweet track record! I'll take Clinton and Obama over Bush and Son.you wouldYou do realize that people in America did not give him the Nobel Prize right?Crazy lefties are crazy lefties, borders obviously don't mean anything to them anyway.I merely assume Sarah Palin does not really understand things since her comprehension of how the first amendment works is so off base.Yea, she is really lacking in her understanding that freedom of the press was meant to keep politicians in check, not attack private citizens to sell a few newspapers or get invited to more cocktail parties.Palin would have been 10 times better than Obama has been.And I am using the exact same definitions of reality as you guys are to make that statement. Well, not exactly the same, we actually have proof that Obama is a failure. But at least we can mark off 'elected a black guy to the Presidency' off our bucket lists. Link to post Share on other sites
akoff 0 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 So, we should trust the right after giving us George Bush? Sweet track record! I'll take Clinton and Obama over Bush and Son.You do realize that people in America did not give him the Nobel Prize right?I merely assume Sarah Palin does not really understand things since her comprehension of how the first amendment works is so off base.as opposed to how the Obama adminastration understands democracy and capitalism. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Yea, she is really lacking in her understanding that freedom of the press was meant to keep politicians in check, not attack private citizens to sell a few newspapers or get invited to more cocktail parties.The bolded is not found anywhere in the Constitution to my knowledge.And yes she really is lacking in her understanding because she thinks the first amendment protects her and other people she likes from criticism which it does not. She also thinks saying retard is not protected under the 1st amendment but saying ni--er is protected. Keep believing the fairy tale that after a dire economic collapse in 2008 someone else would have everything turned around by now. I have to admit though her ability to back someone even wackier than her in Christine O'Donnell is impressive. Witchcraft! Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 as opposed to how the Obama adminastration understands democracy and capitalism.Right, because not grabbing your ankles for big business means you don't understand capitalism.......and what don't they understand about democracy exactly? Are the Tea Partiers being denied the right to protest? Do we still not have free elections? Did I miss something? Or is this another sky is falling one-liner backed by nothing? Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Yes one could.She has said that attacking Iran would be a good idea. So, one could say the same about Palin [that she wouldn't attack Iran], but she would probably disagree with you. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 She has said that attacking Iran would be a good idea. So, one could say the same about Palin [that she wouldn't attack Iran], but she would probably disagree with you.Very likely in our lifetime that Iran will need to be attacked.Thank you Manhattan Project. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 The bolded is not found anywhere in the Constitution to my knowledge.That is the reason it is in there. The exact reason. The main reason, and the reason everyone who is honest and not trying to pull a Clinton definition game would admit to.And yes she really is lacking in her understanding because she thinks the first amendment protects her and other people she likes from criticism which it does not. She also thinks saying retard is not protected under the 1st amendment but saying ni--er is protected.Again, you know how she thinks, you know what she thinks, and you knwo what she is going to think.It must be good to be liberal, I mean you guys are a step away from being...Keep believing the fairy tale that after a dire economic collapse in 2008 someone else would have everything turned around by now.Don't think anyone could have done worse though.I have to admit though her ability to back someone even wackier than her in Christine O'Donnell is impressive. Witchcraft!Witchcraft = bad, makes a person unqualified to be in the senateGrand Wizard = Good, makes someone qualified to be in the senate for decades.Double standards = good if you are intellectually dishonest, bad if you are a republican Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Again, you know how she thinks, you know what she thinks, and you knwo what she is going to think.It must be good to be liberal, I mean you guys are a step away from being...Um, this is based on what she said publicly a number of times. I guess when you are a liberal you have the special ability to hear the words that exit people's mouths.Freedom of the press exists because it is a good idea. It was not aimed just at politicians but also at anyone who might wield lots of influence (like say a former governor who is the de facto head of a new political movement or a higher up in the military or an incredibly powerful businessman). I am sure Sarah Palin was disappointed to learn that freedom of the press still applied to her even after she quit but those are the breaks.Also, you keep bringing up robert Byrd. He did not belong in the Senate imo and neither does Christine O'Donnell. But but but....the Democrats have a crazy person too!!!! It will be fun to watch Bill Maher slowly destroy her though. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Very likely in our lifetime that Iran will need to be attacked.Thank you Manhattan Project. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,751 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 She has said that attacking Iran would be a good idea.You aren't manipulating this quote out of context in anyway, correct?She just has a list of countries that we should nuke right now, and Iran is one of them?If Iran attacked Israel or us, and probably if they attacked pretty much anyone else, Palin would attack them. So would Obama/Biden. Any other conclusion is disingenuous. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 She just has a list of countries that we should nuke right now, and Iran is one of them?You mean like this one? Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 You mean like this one?Nuke Iran twice!I disagree on Mexico. They have some nice beaches. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Nuke Iran twice!I disagree on Mexico. They have some nice beaches.Exactly. If we nuke them, we can go there and not have to worry about being solicited for chicklets every 5 minutes. We may have to wait a few months, or years (not sure how long it takes nuclear fall out to go away). Link to post Share on other sites
JoeyJoJo 18 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 we can go there and not have to worry about being solicited for chicklets every 5 minutes.I wish I could get solicited by some Mexican chicklets every 5 minutes. Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted September 21, 2010 Share Posted September 21, 2010 Exactly. If we nuke them, we can go there and not have to worry about being solicited for chicklets every 5 minutes. We may have to wait a few months, or years (not sure how long it takes nuclear fall out to go away).I find the chiclets keep the general unpleasant taste of Mexico out of your mouth..... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now