i have seen loads of photos GTech, I am talking about video footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon, either from the hotel, the petrol station or from the pentagon. I am not convinced by the "Fisher Price" camera that shows 5 grainy frames. We are talking about the most important building in the world here (after Ashburton Grove) Surely there has to be some decent footage of the missile hitting the Pentagon? Damn did I say missile.
Must admit that it was a cruel day ... not just for the US but includes the free world as well. Orchestrated or not Sept 11 did bring several positive issues, like Afghanistan - from what i see on tv, the Afghans are happy to have been liberated. however im not saying that what happened on Sept. 11 was necessary in order to achieve the events that occured after. Its just that things happened after that
Iraq is in one hell of a mess though. A disaster that one turned out to be. And if, if Iran is bombed it will be an even bigger disaster, there is no doubt about that at all.
Yes, and it is in our hands to let it happen again or not. As long as we are blind to the islamic threat worse things are to come.
What about Iraq? They practise muslim democracy, anything wrong about it? No, nothing wrong as long as they don't try to get nasty with the rest of the world.
Again, source that such exists? I've asked twice now. Isn't that your problem? So you have no evidence of a missle hitting, but you assume one did? Yet you say that doesn't make you stupid? Alrighty then It seems like you did. Can you say "young angry white male with low IQ?" Where are the people that were on Flight 77?
That is the question everyone wants answering mate. The one from the hotel and the petrol station were taken away within minutes by the FBI mate, have you been following the Pentagon story at all?
That question has long been answered. So, as I pointed out before, when questions are answered, do you repeat them over and over again like noppid does? Source that they existed? Three times now. Shall we prepare for a fourth?
The point is not if Clinton was responsible for putting Bush for the problems he could have prevented. The point is that denying sex with Monica and comparing it to inability to respond in a competent manor as Bush has demonstrated is rediculous. You now want to turn into something else. I'm not disagreeing Clinton could have done better but YOUR argument about Monica was purely irrelevant and rediculous to put forward. And yes Clinton could have done way better then he has done but that was not my point, my point is that Bush is not the person a country as the United States needs. He showed lack of character to respond immediately to a critical situation. Continually? Stop fabricating things man, do you have a playbook laying around with preprepared responses or something? I'm not making things up, the man was visiting a elementary school for christsake. Is it really that relevant to you? If it makes things better, they where kids, happy now jeez Rediculous man. He should have left Emma E. Booker Elementary School immediately, gotten onto Air Force One and left without a moment's delay. Pfft, yeah it finaly dawned on mim, he saw the light, Hallelujah!!
That is the height of silliness. Both of those guys played dramatically to the polls and constituncies. Clinton came out of the Left and worked to straddle (LOL) the center. Bush works hard to mostly appease the Right.
He did. But apparently not fast enough for you. So, let's explore this non-issue you've chosen to make an issue. Had Bush immediately stood up, panic'd like john kerry did and rushed out the door, how would it change your views of GWB today?
No, the point is that Clinton's denial interfered greatly with hit ability to govern. That is a fact. It's in the 9/11 report. No, I'm just stating the facts. Clinton was in office for 8 years prior to the 9/11 attacks. Bush was in office for all of 6 months. Bush did more to protect America in the days that followed 9/11 than Clinton did in 8 years. That is a fact. It's not about whether Clinton "could have done better", it is about the fact that as a result of his misconduct, Clinton let his perception of public opinion of himself dictate his policy. That is a fact. So the truth comes out. You just do not like Bush. So you like, Clinton, let emotion rule your thought process. Thank you for finally admitting that. I will cut you some slack now. How so? As I recall he responded immediately once all the facts were in. And to this day, is still responding. Yet you would question his character in that regard as well. Let me ask this, since you are so emotional when it comes to your own thought process, did you cry when Bush was elected, or throw a temper tantrum? Yeah, it's called "The Rational Human's Logical Response to Angry White Males With Low IQ's." Well you are misstating facts. These are such obvious facts, in fact, that one can only assume you are intentionally making up your own facts. When you get that emotional it can and does happen. But hey, you've already stated that you cannot help it. Sure. If you are going to try to tell me that Bush did nothing during the 9/11 attacks, and in the same sentence state that he was with "toddlers", when in fact he was not, I am going to question the validity of your obviously skewed opinion. If you cannot get one simple fact straight, how on earth can you expect me or anyone else to respect your misstatement of any other fact? Now you would have me believe they were baby goats? He did.
That point alone is not enough to change my views about him. That point was for ME an indication of poor leadership. You see it as a strength, i see it as weakness. Period! That's my view, nothing more. Yeah, i don't like Bush being president, so? You will cut me some slack now? Haha As if i was really under pressure by you Huh Mia taking a trip down fabrication lane again... You should really stop now man, it's getting rediculous as hell and you making yourself look stupid in the process as well, or?.... So i said toddlers? instead of kids so what? It's such an important fact right? Instead i should have used the phrase snotnose kids to give the same verbal impact as toddlers so it would not be interpreted by angry males always claiming anyone having an other opinion being a young angry white male with low iq.
Of course not. You don't like him. That much is clear. Forming an opinion based on hate is pretty typical of Angry White Males with Low IQ's. I would expect nothing less. Poor leadership to you is remaining calm under pressure? Yes, it is hard for Angry White Males with Low IQ's to remain calm under pressure. So? It cuts to the crux of your disdain for his policy. You base your opinions on the fact that you dislike him and think he should not be president, not on the facts or his record. That is what the "so?" is about. Sure, I understand that you are just angry. Now that I know you are not merely confused or deranged, but simply angry, I am here to help. Take a deep breath and relax. You don't always have to be so angry. Life is too short. Once you calm down, reality will set in and you will finally see the truth for what it is. You're under pressure from your own emotions. Your anger has clouded your logic and ability to reason. It happens. Just calm down a bit and the pressure will ease. What is getting "rediculous" is your continual misspelling of the word "ridiculous." You know what. Only when it is misstated. And you certainly seem like the later.