.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to ShadowSD.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="ShadowSD:498201"]hungtableed said:[QUOTE]half the crap you accused me of, I never said - esp. about 'not getting hit since 9/11'[/QUOTE] I only used the word you in the first sentence and just once, when I said "you guys' favorite talking points", using the term you guys broadly as people who defend neocon positions. I didn't mean it was anything you had said personally, sorry if it sounded like that; maybe I should have worded it differently. hungtableed said:[QUOTE] - either way, Clinton failed getting bin laden because he was a panty wearing red commie liberal and did not have the testicular fortitude to bag him because he is far more concerned with his legacy and what people think of him. Bush, on the other hand, at least has the balls to use men in uniform to kill these bastards when the only action Clinton really took in regards to the military was cut their pay and veterans benefits. [/QUOTE] Well, you haven't answered any of the points I just made that completely condradict that, so I'm not going to repeat them. But certainly, if no one here can give a reasonable answer to any of the points I've made, they clearly hold up. Ultimately though, everyone who is defending Bush here needs to read the 9/11 commission report, written by both Republicans and Democrats, and see whose point of view it backs up. [/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.006 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][