busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
had, meaning
STILL HAD, Dummy, you know thats what THEY meant
DUMMY!
STILL HAD, Dummy, you know thats what THEY meant
DUMMY!
The Republican Debates
- Thread starter Ulaven_Demorte
- Start date
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
there is ONE difference between NK and Iran
NK has NOT threatened SEVERAL CUNTRIES with destruction
Iran has and will
NK has NOT threatened SEVERAL CUNTRIES with destruction
Iran has and will
Le Jacquelope
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Posts
- 76,445
And that was when Republicans were more liberal than the Democrats, mind you.Drixxx said:
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
busybody said:
No shit, we KNOW he had WMD's at one time. He used them against Iran and against the Kurds.
The thing is, he didn't have them anymore. No evidence has been found that he did.
U
unregistered
Guest
Ulaven_Demorte
Non-Prophet Organization
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2006
- Posts
- 30,016
busybody said:
North Korea never threatened other countries with destruction? really?
Korean people ready to annihilate U.S. imperialists
Pyongyang (KCNA) - In a recent statement the spokesman of the general staff of the Korean People's Army solemnly declared that the KPA will mercilessly answer the U.S.imperialist aggressors' challenge with an annihilating blow. Upon hearing the statement, servicemen and people of all walks of life in the DPRK are now hardening their resolve to wreak their vengeance upon the enemies. A KPA general officer, Kim Thae Hwa, said: "instantly the enemies pounce upon us, our People's Army soldiers will beat them as they flap a fly and annihilate all of them. Neither the U.S. territory nor Japanese islands will remain without mishap." Ri Il Hwan, first secretary of the C.C., the Kim Il Sung Socialist Youth League, said: "if the U.S.imperialists invade our dear fatherland even 0.001 mm, eight million youths and schoolchildren will smash them at one stroke with a sledge hammer of revolution prepared for scores of years, and make even suicidal attack to plunge the damned U.S. territory into a sea of flame." A department director of the presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly, Ham Hak Song, said that with firm confidence in victory, they would sharply watch movements of the enemy and further cement the DPRK government in a mobilized and keyed-up attitude. "in case of emergency we will rise up as one to mercilessly annihilate the U.S.imperialist aggressors and reunify the country," he added. Choe Myong Chol, manager of the Rakwon Machine Complex, said: "if a war is imposed again by the U.S.imperialists, the workers of Rakwon, together with the invincible People's Army, will turn out as they did in the grim Fatherland Liberation War and mercilessly give a retaliatory strike to the aggressors and reduce them to forlorn wandering spirits."
Sounds like some pretty harsh threats leveled against the US, South Korea and Japan to me and thats just ONE statement.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
the NK talk loudly
the NK's can be talked to
the NK's dont have a death wish
Iran WANTS to be bombed as it brings about their REDEMTION
Iran has said often, even if 20 million of em DIE, there are a BILLION MooseShits left, so they see it as a WIN
So you are saying we should attack NK cause they have said they WILL NUKE/ATTACK us
That means that since Iran says the same, often, we should attack em NOW before they have NUKES
WHY NOT?
the NK's can be talked to
the NK's dont have a death wish
Iran WANTS to be bombed as it brings about their REDEMTION
Iran has said often, even if 20 million of em DIE, there are a BILLION MooseShits left, so they see it as a WIN
So you are saying we should attack NK cause they have said they WILL NUKE/ATTACK us
That means that since Iran says the same, often, we should attack em NOW before they have NUKES
WHY NOT?
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
Ok,
Protruding PPman
What would YOU do with Iran?
Protruding PPman
What would YOU do with Iran?
Wrong Element
Sentient Onion
- Joined
- May 5, 2002
- Posts
- 24,909
Drixxx said:
And most of the Republicans on the board are upset about that.
You'll be shocked to hear I missed the debate. I didn't think anything could top the last debate where everyone (except McCain) competed for the role of Torturer-In-Chief.
Wok
Over compressed
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Posts
- 39,889
Wrong Element said:
Also, are republicans waiting for a knight in shining armor? I have been reading the Hannity boards and it seems a lot of them are waiting for a Reagan clone. With that said, Thompson seems pretty popular.
Is Newt looking for the same prize too? I heard something along those lines as well.
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
Plasmaball said:
Hillary has a history to go after...and tell me that TEAM CLINTON won't go into hyperdrive after their opponent towards November '08.Hillary put forth the folly that a giant right wing conspiracy was responsible for her husband pulling his schlong out for some chubby intern to suck on...by the way-what's become of Lewinsky anyway?
She's got to be considering the final solution if you catch my drift.
Bill Clinton can waltz around the world pulling down 100K every time he opens his mouth...but Monica? Bet she can't get a date with a homeless guy.
She's marked for life.Bill Chucklehead will be named WORLD AMBASSADOR by his CROW wife if she gets in...can't wait for that...Bill Clinton: King of the Mudderfuggin' World,baby!
Commander in Chief,Hillary Clinton.Now that's really really hilarious to think of.
You'll see mass resignations in the military.Bank on it.
landslider2000
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Posts
- 2,545
Any candidate who had clarity on illegal immigratioin could win.
The steps would be:
1) Control the border to lessen the supply of illegals.
2) Penalize employers to dry up the demand.
3) Implement a national biometric ID (despite the Orwellian implications) to
begin to learn who is in the country.
4) In 5 years, ponder what to do with the illegal aliens still here.
The steps would be:
1) Control the border to lessen the supply of illegals.
2) Penalize employers to dry up the demand.
3) Implement a national biometric ID (despite the Orwellian implications) to
begin to learn who is in the country.
4) In 5 years, ponder what to do with the illegal aliens still here.
Peregrinator
Hooded On A Hill
- Joined
- May 27, 2004
- Posts
- 89,482
https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=485360semen4her said:
FinePhilly
Custom User
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Posts
- 25,166
Joaquin1975 said:
Thompson rocks my socks.
subwannabe
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2004
- Posts
- 2,872
To reply to the original post, I fail to see anything different about Republican debates vs. Democratic debates. It's all about attacking the other side. It makes me sick. No one on either side wants us to vote for them, they just want us to vote against the other side. I look at the country like 25% of the country is left wing liberal and 25% is right wing conservative. No matter how much you tell either side the sky is blue, they will not believe you. I pride myself on being one of the other 50% who are mainstream America. I have voted both Republican and Democrat.
As far as the rest goes, some people have very short perceptions of things and cannot look at the long term big picture. Take Iran working on nuclear capabilities, for example. Some say that it is years away until they get it, so why talk about it now? First, it is hard to compare Iran and Iraq. Iraq claimed all along that they had no WMD's (although they repeatedly refused to let idependent inspectors veryify this). Iran's president has vehemently said they were going to pursue nuclear ambitions (for peaceful purposes (yeah, right)), that Israel should be iniliated, and that the Holocost never happened. I do not believe that if Iran develops a nuclear bomb that they plan to actually use it - rather, they will most likely sell nuclear devices to terrosists for millions of dollars in cash money and then claim they had nothing to do with New York City or Washington DC or Israel being blown up. The WORLD realizes that the time to do something is NOW, and this includes other Muslim countries who are scared to death of Iran becoming nuclear. Many around the world still remember Hitler and there are many who had wished they could turn back the clock and never let Hitler get as far as he did. If we had sat back and did nothing back then we could all very well be speaking German right now. I certainly am not looking forward to praying down to Mecca five times a day, although I'm sure they would probably kill me before giving me that option. One other thing to remember is that the planning for 911 was happening during the Clinton administration (I'm not saying it was his fault). It doesn't really matter who was in office, it was going to happen anyway, and we weren't "at war" with anyone then. Our only crime was in being friends with Israel. I think George Bush was 100% right in declaring war on terrorism after 911, although I am somewhat skeptical about the end result of the Iraq war. I only know two things about the war in Iraq:
1. The terrorists have made Iraq their battleground against us, which should tell us something (some don't listen) and since this has been the battleground, no terror strikes against us have happened on US soil. What will happen when and if we pull out? Will the battlefront then move to our territory or will the terrorists just jump up and down in joy saying they won and leave it at that?
2. If the end result of the Iraq war is to turn Iran not only into a superpower in the Mideast but a nuclear superpower, then I would say it was a huge mistake to have gone to war in Iraq.
One last note, no matter how much the Iraq War could have been a mistake the deed is done now and cannot be reversed so it is too simplistic to just think we can fold up our tents and come home and to hell with whatever happens after that. Whatever happens there in the future has EXTREMELY HUGE CONSEQUENCES for our future and we had better get it right.
Second note: When we invaded Iraq we did so with the best intelligence we had at the time, even though the intelligence was flawed, it was not just made up by the administration to go to war, it was just bad intelligence. Saddam could have avoided the whole mess if he had just opened up his country to WMD inspections, like he agreed to. President Bush had the same intelligence as did Congress. They all (including the democrats) made their decision based on the facts at the time. President Bush has had to live with his decision but somehow the Democrats aren't man enough (or woman enough) to live with their decision.
As far as the rest goes, some people have very short perceptions of things and cannot look at the long term big picture. Take Iran working on nuclear capabilities, for example. Some say that it is years away until they get it, so why talk about it now? First, it is hard to compare Iran and Iraq. Iraq claimed all along that they had no WMD's (although they repeatedly refused to let idependent inspectors veryify this). Iran's president has vehemently said they were going to pursue nuclear ambitions (for peaceful purposes (yeah, right)), that Israel should be iniliated, and that the Holocost never happened. I do not believe that if Iran develops a nuclear bomb that they plan to actually use it - rather, they will most likely sell nuclear devices to terrosists for millions of dollars in cash money and then claim they had nothing to do with New York City or Washington DC or Israel being blown up. The WORLD realizes that the time to do something is NOW, and this includes other Muslim countries who are scared to death of Iran becoming nuclear. Many around the world still remember Hitler and there are many who had wished they could turn back the clock and never let Hitler get as far as he did. If we had sat back and did nothing back then we could all very well be speaking German right now. I certainly am not looking forward to praying down to Mecca five times a day, although I'm sure they would probably kill me before giving me that option. One other thing to remember is that the planning for 911 was happening during the Clinton administration (I'm not saying it was his fault). It doesn't really matter who was in office, it was going to happen anyway, and we weren't "at war" with anyone then. Our only crime was in being friends with Israel. I think George Bush was 100% right in declaring war on terrorism after 911, although I am somewhat skeptical about the end result of the Iraq war. I only know two things about the war in Iraq:
1. The terrorists have made Iraq their battleground against us, which should tell us something (some don't listen) and since this has been the battleground, no terror strikes against us have happened on US soil. What will happen when and if we pull out? Will the battlefront then move to our territory or will the terrorists just jump up and down in joy saying they won and leave it at that?
2. If the end result of the Iraq war is to turn Iran not only into a superpower in the Mideast but a nuclear superpower, then I would say it was a huge mistake to have gone to war in Iraq.
One last note, no matter how much the Iraq War could have been a mistake the deed is done now and cannot be reversed so it is too simplistic to just think we can fold up our tents and come home and to hell with whatever happens after that. Whatever happens there in the future has EXTREMELY HUGE CONSEQUENCES for our future and we had better get it right.
Second note: When we invaded Iraq we did so with the best intelligence we had at the time, even though the intelligence was flawed, it was not just made up by the administration to go to war, it was just bad intelligence. Saddam could have avoided the whole mess if he had just opened up his country to WMD inspections, like he agreed to. President Bush had the same intelligence as did Congress. They all (including the democrats) made their decision based on the facts at the time. President Bush has had to live with his decision but somehow the Democrats aren't man enough (or woman enough) to live with their decision.
Le Jacquelope
Loves Spam
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Posts
- 76,445
Boy, you people are obsessed with that chubby adult woman.semen4her said:
I guess that helps you to avoid thinking about Republicans' penchant for pedophilia.
an_angels_wings
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2006
- Posts
- 556
subwannabe said:
The "terrorists" have basically convinced themselves that the west in its entirety, specifically the United States is in conspiracy against Islam. They are convinced that we will stop at nothing until Islam is brought to the ground and we inflict our horrific ideals of "modernity", secularism, and Christianity on them.
I say believe what you want to believe, but don't go around killing people.
Anyway, point being, they'll stop at nothing to bring us down, especially when we've been "meddling" in affairs that they think we ought not to be meddling in.
Powertone
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2006
- Posts
- 11,607
Republicans attacking Democrats? yeah,right.
Democrats have had their hands around Bush's throat since November 8,2000 and have only tightened their grip since then.ZERO support on Iraq,blaming him for Katrina...nevermind that the state has been a DEM stronghold since the Civil War.Where's all the hoopla about the DOW? It's better than Clinton on Wall Street and he was touted as MIDAS for the dot.com bonanza.Then it popped and it became Bush's fault.Jeezis the DEMS were blaming Bush for the (slight) recession before he became president.Get fuckin real.
They blamed him for gas prices too before he was president!
DEMS stand for nothing but stand for anything at the same time to get a vote.
Scooter Libby goes to jail on a witch-hunt. Sandy Berger steals fucking classified documents that would've hung an albatross around Clinton's neck and what happens? Only jokes on late nite TV.
The double standard is now quadruple.
Democrats have had their hands around Bush's throat since November 8,2000 and have only tightened their grip since then.ZERO support on Iraq,blaming him for Katrina...nevermind that the state has been a DEM stronghold since the Civil War.Where's all the hoopla about the DOW? It's better than Clinton on Wall Street and he was touted as MIDAS for the dot.com bonanza.Then it popped and it became Bush's fault.Jeezis the DEMS were blaming Bush for the (slight) recession before he became president.Get fuckin real.
They blamed him for gas prices too before he was president!
DEMS stand for nothing but stand for anything at the same time to get a vote.
Scooter Libby goes to jail on a witch-hunt. Sandy Berger steals fucking classified documents that would've hung an albatross around Clinton's neck and what happens? Only jokes on late nite TV.
The double standard is now quadruple.
busybody..
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2002
- Posts
- 149,503
err, werent we in the worst economy since Hoover for the past 7 years?jhuson said:
and yes, there was a CONTRACTION in the economy in early 01
BTW
WHAT WOULD YOU DO WITH IRAN???????????????
