Comments for Obama rebukes McCain camp on terrorism criticism »
Posted By not2needy 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsA defiant Barack Obama said Tuesday he would take no lectures from Republicans on which candidate would keep the U.S. safer, a sharp rebuke to John McCain's aides who said the Democrat had a naive, Sept. 10 mind-set toward terrorism.
Read Full Story at news.yahoo.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 220
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
"These are the same guys who helped to engineer the distraction of the war in Iraq at a time when we could have pinned down the people who actually committed 9/11," the presumed nominee told reporters aboard his campaign plane. "This is the same kind of fear-mongering that got us into Iraq ... and it's exactly that failed foreign policy I want to reverse."
Thank You Mr. Obama. People are tired of politicians trying to scare them into voting for them.
Reply-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 6 months ago
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned39 Replies
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA
"And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo," Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks â;; for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center â;; we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.
Someone please buy this idiot a clue! Yes all that were caught were tried.
The other 171? Including OBL, al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, they got a way.
Yes under the Bush FAILD policy, OBL has been religated to issuing audio tapes at will from some cave.
Under the Clinton Policy?
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hers a short list
Attacks linked to Osama bin Laden
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2001/09/13/b...
Osama bin Laden heads al-Qa'eda Even before Tuesday, he and his followers were believed to be responsible for terrorist attacks that have killed at least 59 Americans and wounded more than 1,400. Among the attacks linked to bin Laden:
* June 17, 2001: Ten people possessing hand grenades, machine guns and bombmaking equipment are arrested in Amman, Jordan, in a suspected terrorist plot to attack the U.S. Embassy and its staff in Sanaa, Yemen. U.S. investigators are trying to determine whether the Islamic Army of Aden, a militant Muslim group associated with the Saudi dissident, might have been involved.
* Oct. 12, 2000: Bombing of the USS Cole anchored in Aden; 17 sailors killed; 39 wounded. Bin Laden is suspected.
* August 1998: Bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania kill 224 people, including 12 Americans. Bin Laden is indicted in New York.
Reply-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
* June 1996: Bombing of Khobar Towers apartments at a U.S. military barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia; 19 U.S. airmen killed; 372 Americans hurt.
* November 1995: Bombing at Army training headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; five Americans killed; 31 wounded.
* February 1993: Truck bomb at the World Trade Center in New York City kills six and injures more than 1,000.
* 1992: An attack on a hotel in Aden, Yemen, where about 100 U.S. servicemen were staying before going to Somalia for Operation Restore Hope. No one was injured. Bin Laden claimed responsibility.
Reply-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Was Clinton president in 1992?? Nope. Bush senior was. 1993? Clinton was in office one month and you blame that bombing on him? Another thing injest, if the Republican congress wasn't so set on destroying Clinton he might have been able to do something about these attacks. But I guess he could only send orders for the military to find these men and bring them to justice. Right? So I guess the real fault would lie in the lack of the military's ability to carry out the orders. Right?
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"also, the final CIA report on the Cole bombings wasn't completed until two weeks before Clinton left office."
Uhm was the 2000 USS Cole attack done by some other AQ?
Not the same AQ that had been attacking us since 92?
Not the same AQ that we launched missiles against in 1998?
If it was the SAME AQ, then what's your point?
Are you saying that Clinton was NOT going after AQ?
Are you saying that The Clinton/ Law enforcement model was ONLY reactive not Proactive?
Does this not prove the futility of a Law enforcement model for fighting terrorism?
As Obama said AQ/OBL can send out audio tapes when ever they want!
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
point is...why did bush just forget about it? why was it suddenly only clinton's problem and not america's problem?
when bush came into office he did nothing about OBL. he even ignored warnings.
in fact, cheney was meeting with the taliban about a trans-afghan pipeline just 6 months before 911.
doesn't that bother you?
Reply
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned7 Replies
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Jezzz you need a clue.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Rep and both houses were Dem.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Dem and both houses were Dem.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Dem and both houses were Rep.
WE have been attacked when our President was a Rep and houses were Rep/Dem.
GET IT?
It doesn't matter WHO the F-ing President IS or WAS. What matters is HOW we fight terrorism.
Using a law enforcement model is dumb
It would be like going after the pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor but NOT the ships that launched them or Japan.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you obviously have no clue as to how many times Al-Qaeda has attacked US military sites, US embassies, US consulates and US business interests since 911.
my list is longer than yours.
*June 2002, Karachi, Pakistan: bomb exploded outside American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan, killing 12. Linked to al-Qaeda.
*May 2003, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: suicide bombers killed 34, including 8 Americans, at housing compounds for Westerners. Al-Qaeda suspected.
* Aug 2003, Jakarta, Indonesia: Suicide car-bomb killed 12, injured 150 at Marriott Hotel. The hotel had been recently used by the US Embassy for an event. Al-Qaeda suspected.
* May 2004, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists attack the offices of a Saudi oil company in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, take foreign oil workers hostage in a nearby residential compound, leaving 22 people dead including one American. Al- Qaeda suspected.
Reply-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
* June 2004, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia: terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr., an American, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks. Al-Qaeda claims responsibility.
* Dec 2004, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia: Al-Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. consulate, killing 5 consulate employees. 4 terrorists were killed by Saudi security.
* Nov 2005, Amman, Jordan: Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels, Radisson, Grand Hyatt, and Days Inn, in Amman, Jordan, killing 57. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.
* Sep 2006, Damascus, Syria: an attack by four gunman on the American embassy was foiled. Jund al-Sham, an off shoot of Al-Qaeda, was suspected.
* Oct 2007, Vienna, Austria: Austrian authorities foil a plot to bomb US embassy in Vienna.
in the 7 years since 911, US embassies/consulates have been attacked in S. Arabia, Serbia, Greece, Pakistan, India, Uzbekistan and of course Iraq and Afghanistan - way more attacks than in the 7 years prior to 911.
Reply -
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NoWayMan
"um, in the aftermath of the 1993 WTC attack, more people were arrested, tried and jailed than were killed in the actual attack."
Seriously do you honestly think the plan blowing out the entire support structure of the under ground garage was only intended to kill 6 people?
However Obama's claim is that ALL those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing were caught tried and jailed.
Ether he's an idiot or he's lying.
KSM (Bluto looking guy) was the one who planed, trained and financed the 93 attack.
He also planed the 9/11 attack, getting support and approval from OBL in late 98 or early 99.
HINT: If he had been caught tried and jailed, he wouldn't have been free to planed the 9/11 attack, ya think?
There are 171 co conspirators Including OBL, al-Qaeda member Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, they ALL got a way.
Reply
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
injest1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
IanFraigun
"Just who got away. None of those mentioned were ever in this country and were not subject to being tried or imprisoned here. Those here that actually committed the attack are the ones captured, convicted, and imprisoned."
Utterly friging amazing. This is one of those forest/trees things
"None of those mentioned were ever in this country"
All 171? Are you sure? Wanna bet?
"and were not subject to being tried or imprisoned here"
Sorry, even under the "law enforcement" model those who pay, train and supply those who actually do the attack are subject to our laws and international laws.
Perhaps you don't know this but OBL has not been in the USA, yet he was indicted by our courts and there was a warrant out for his arrest.
Using a law enforcement model is dumb
It would be like going after the pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor but NOT the ships that launched them or Japan.
Reply
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I just dont know what to think. On the one hand, as a Christian Conservative, I must embrace the national media campaign that our fearless leader, Goerge W. Bush as a staunch defender of America.
On the other hand, everbody that leaves this Administration assesses the Bush Administration as woeful, vengeful, and guilty of always puttin Political Considerations ahead of our national intersts.
For instance, Richard Clarke, the TOP official in Goerge W. Bush's counter-terrorism campaign has said ... and I quote:
"George W. Bush has made us less safe and I think he's done a terrible job on the war on terrorism."
So who do I believe? Mainstream Media or an insider who had a front row seat?
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
APixieInDixieComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also FTA:
"I'm a little disgusted by the attempts of some of my friends on the McCain campaign to use the same old, tired tactics ... to drive a wedge between Americans for partisan advantage and to frankly frighten Americans," Clarke said.
Kerry accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" by siding with Bush's policies, particularly with respect to the Iraq war.
Obama said Republicans could be counted on to do "what they've done every election cycle, which is to use terrorism as club to make the American people afraid to win elections." He said he didn't think it would work this time.
I certainly hope that the American people have gotten wise to the fear factor, and do something positive toward the healing of our country and our relationships around the world.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Kerry accused McCain of "defending a policy that is indefensible" >>>>
It is indefensible, it's getting to be a pain in the butt that it has to be repeated to IDIOTS over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.............
Reply-
-
-
-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
TheRealizer1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is to be hoped that the American people can see past the fear mongering which leads us to shut our eyes to the gradual erosion of our civil liberties. We rapidly approach third world status, and will achieve it unless we get a different mindset.....
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a question for the kool-aid drinkers in here. If Obama, as president, has nothing but a preemptive nuclear strike to keep Iran from passing nuclear weapons to terrorists, would you or would you not support that preemptive nuclear strike?
Reply-
-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
dwemm - Sorry, but your simply wrong in saying there is no logic involved. The question (as phrased) is basically as follows :-
If condition A is X and condition B is Y, then WHAT is next action.
That is a logical progression. The only non-logical part is the user response, as that is based solely on personal opinion.
Reply-
Neutral
dwemm1 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's fine, as long as we're in the realm of symbolic deduction-mathematics, theology and law. The conditions are created to be mutually exclusive. When we face a situation of real world events, it's almost assumed that there are more than two options.
At that point the causal link between the two options weakens and we are forced to look at the other potential options. Hence, the fallacy that works for the deduction doesn't necessarily apply when faced causally.
This is fun, like intellectual popcorn, but it doesn't answer why Obama has only two options.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Georgia
Using a nuclear strike is the very last option any president should consider using, and only after exausting all other possible avenues. Under the current administration, for whatever reason, they are missing intersections left and right. They actually seem intent on reaching that "nucular" milestone as soon as possible. Of all who directly or indirectly support that action, I have yet to hear any utterings of what consequences such actions may bring.
I believe most americans would rather we actually exaust "A L L" other avenues before taking such a irreversible step. For that to happen, in the minds of many voters, we need someone that uses his brains more than self inflated ego.
And yes, as a very last resort I do believe Obama would use nuclear weapons, but with the full understanding of its consequences.
Reply -
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
ML2007Comment removed: Retracted by user10 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I only have one comment to Goergies post ... I thought WE were the Kool-Aid drinkers!
Ever time I listen to Dana Purina, FOX, ABC, CBS, NBC, Rush and the hunderts and hunderts of Rabid Rightie info-tainers, I get this Kool-Aid after taste.
Reply-
Neutral
fsev411 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gop, The cons drink the raw sewage flavored Kool-Aid handed to them and then have to spit it back out. The 70% or more of us that are able to think choose the more palatable orange flavored Kool-Aid and enjoy it. See the difference?
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
nikkibabe1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is amazing to watch Republicans claim themselves as experts in fighting terrorism and rest of the Americans are not.
Just want to ask, where did they go to college that offers degree in "anti terrorism"?
It is about time other Americans get enrolled.
Reply-
-
Neutral
miklkit1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here is what your "war on terror" is really about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...everyone who hates America and hates the military is a liberal."
Not exactly. Timothy McVeigh was a registered Republican with some decidedly far-right-wing affiliations.
I've done a bit of research on white supremacist isolationists and militias like Aryan Nations and National Alliance who despise U.S. for 'race coddling' and view the military as a fascist tool to ensure forced integration.
For an eye-opener on far-right-wing loonery, pick up 'The Turner Diaries' which gleefully details the violent overthrow of the government and ends with the lead character preparing to fly a nuke-spiked plane into the Pentagon. McVeigh had a copy in his possession at the time of his arrest.
The white supremacist group The Order used the book as a blueprint for a briefly-successful bank-robbing spree in the early 80s intended to finance the ignition of a race war through subsequent terrorist action.
Reply-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
McVeigh is the exception that proves the rule, and I don't think it takes a genius to discern a contrast in the proximity of liberals to political power vs. that of white supremacists.
Oh wait...almost forgot about Senator Robert Byrd.
Oh wait...he's a Democrat.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
According to some, anyone who opposes the war in Iraq automatically 'hates America' and 'hates the military'. I've got news for them: 70% of Americans 'hate America' and 'hate the military'. Is it really true that 70% of Americans are liberals?
Reply -
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
Neutral
NeoCon1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks â;; for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center â;; we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."
Except he forgot to add that the ringleader behind that attack fled the United States and guess what country gave him refuge???? IRAQ!
Reply-
Neutral
Goppy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks for pointin that out. Even if just more PR, as a Christian Conservative defender of all things Neo-Con ... I must say, I need help defending the extremist military expansionist position that is the bedrock of Neo-Conservatism ... which Im shure you know since you call yourself 'NeoCon'.
There you have it America! Iraq provided safe haven for a terrorist.
Now I caint think of a better reason to invade a country, you? Course, that means we gotta be startin to invade DOZENS of nations ... all of whom have provided safe haven to terrorists.
Well, liek North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, ... Im sure there are others ... we just gotta look close. WE could prollally throw in Libya, Serbia, Jordan, China, Russia, India and Egypt.
Boye! WE Neo-Cons gointa be doin some HEAVY, HEAVY fightin! Well ... not US exactly ... we usually get deferments (ie. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rush) ... America's children will do the fightin.
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Now I caint think of a better reason to invade a country, you? Course, that means we gotta be startin to invade DOZENS of nations ... all of whom have provided safe haven to terrorists."
We should prepare for other nations to invade the US as well. Remember the School of the Americas? Jundallah? Operation 40? What about harboring Luis Posada?
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Obama said. "What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks â;; for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center â;; we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."
That comment tells me that Obama really isn't entirely clued into the problem. The people who did the first attack on the World Trade Center were already here in the United States and they were appended here in the United States, except for the ringleader. Therefore, of course, they were tried here in the United States. Can he see the difference or is he as stupid as he sounds?
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, as usual you miss the point. Not suprising. There was no need to appoint military secret courts outside the constitution. The republicans constantly are pushing their brand of military facism at the expence of existing law. The supreme court, of course found it illegal.
Imagine that, even the right wing catholic supreame court found the kangaroo military courts a violation of existing law.
Cheney/Bush/Rove are with out doubt, war criminals of the highest order.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
chevydog1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is a little disappointing. McC's strength is that he is a principled conservative. IMHO, if he tries to play to the Bush backers, he will be fortunate to achieve numbers as good as Goldwater did. The Dems would love to paint him as another Bush; precisely because this would be the electoral kiss of death if successful. Seems to me that it woud be folly to go out of the way to help them.
Reply-
-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
chevydude!
McC, by his own words, says he sees nothing wrong with our economy, and that he thinks that our presence in Iraq for the next 100 years is acceptable. He USED to be a principled conservative, until the day he spoke out against torture of detainees. After Bush and Cheney promptly took him aside, his whole story changed. He now says and does everything exactly the way Cheney and Bush wants him to say and do it. It's my guess that Bush and Cheney will continue to be in control by proxy if McC is elected because he is too intimidated by them to stand up to them. McC is scared of Bush and Cheney, probably very justifiably so.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama's forthright, unequivocal message about fear mongering, presented NOW, at the git, is EXACTLY what's required to preempt the inevitable, reflexive Repub use of same.
It's a message he'll have to repeat again and again, to the degree that those on the border of falling for such tactics MIGHT begin to feel duped for capitualtion to them.
A segment of the population, represented at Propeller by the likes of--well, you know who, but let's let Ani stand for the lot--will NEVER give up their authoritarian need for an enemy, ANY enemy, against whom America can exercise its "strength," thus mitigating their all-purpose fears of powerlessness.
Reply -
Neutral
freedomexpress1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This election is of historical and Biblical significance! Obama looks sooo Presidential on his jet! Obama has friends in HIGH PLACES--like Opec/Iran they want Obama, per Iranian leader. Obama's first cover up was keeping the media from knowing his middle name (Hussein)! Second cover up, Obama hid Rev. Wright in the basement while he was on the platform announcing his run for the White House! The THIRD DECISION WAS TO DECLARE THAT HE WOULDN'T WEAR THE American Flag on his lapel! After all his associate and friend Wm. Ayers. has stomped on the flag numerous times. Is this the kind of man we want in our White House?
The two names Terrorism and Obama seem ironic! After all, the most wanted man in THE WORLD is: OSAMA! Remove the B out of Obama and the S out of Osama what do you have BS!!
Reply-
Neutral
antibrainwasher1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here we go, here is the typical republican racist facist swiftboating lying sack of crap scum sucking american hating republican shill at work.
Freedom express indeed. The freedom you stand for is freedom from the truth. Freedom to be a republican american hating facist.
Vote republican if you want this type Lamebaugh ditohead america hating racist liar in charge of policy.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
djn3nunez31 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tell us how you really feel!
You just don't want to see a crack smokin, muslim appeasing, ****** mongering, terrorist loving, homosexual,(racially charged adjective) as your President do ya?
Sarcasm off :(
Biblical significance? Hahahahahahaha. Good one.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...or, Freedom, remove the B from "Bush," insert a T, multiply by ten, divide by two, let the cat onto the keyboard of a computer and add the letters she (or he!) will inevitably step on, and you get...
...V24FESWE!
Try it! It works!
Reply-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Elsewhere on the net at the moment, you can find Obama's aide and perhaps foreign policy advisor opining that our anti-terrorism policy should be based on Winnie the Pooh.
No xit.
In his most effeminate, speak-with-a-lisp cross-dressing wet dream, Al Gore couldn't be this pathetic if he tried his damndest.
Reply-
Neutral
MacR1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But Remember Al Gore is Captain Planet.
He is not only going to save us from ourselves. He is going to go after the real culprit, who is a threat to us. He is super ceral about it.
http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155237/
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
spkguy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" Al Gore is an idiot just like Obama. His house uses enough electricity to power over 200 average homes. After he did all of his solar improvements his bill actually went up. "
"the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours."
Thats 20 times the average home, not 200!
So who's the IDIOT here?
Reply-
Neutral
Georgia501 year, 5 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Brian: "Uh...Peter....I think the idiot is the one who can't grasp the distinction between "enough to power over 200 homes," and "20 times the national average."
Peter Griffin: "Look, Brian, there's still room at the dog pound if you keep that xit up! Meg...take this mutt outside!"
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Gee, Georgia, effeminate? Speaks with a lisp?
So tell me: what's a REAL man--that is, one NOT embodying those dreaded female qualities IN ANY DEGREE--as you see it?
Oh, I get it--you think men should act like men and women like women, and never the affective twain should meet.
But my question still stands.
Using the not-man-enough (or not-female-enough) "slander" is cheap, crude, and, all-in-all, know-nothing.
And you, apparently a thinking person, should know better.
Reply -
-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree,I do not think the FEAR card will work again. We are to smart to fall for that one, and I just refuse to beleive that McCain would keep us safer than Obama,the man is a continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda and worse. He has already stated he would not talk to those who are not in alliance with the United States, he would rather shoot first and ask questions later, unless he's changed his mind on that one also. Senator Obama has a quality that has been missing in the whitehouse for quite some time now, that is the abilty to reason, for he is a reasonable human being. Intelligent thought process,he's not perfect for sure as none of us are, but I beleive a vote for the senator tells the world that the people of the United States want Peace and change not just for ourselves but for the world as a whole. I think merely by electing him we will become safer. Not taht we let our guard down of course. As we all know the world is a dangerous place,especially for Americans
Reply-
Neutral
not2needy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bush has made us vulnerable, and it will take a long time to regain the trust of countries that used to be our allies.
Maybe some honesty and integrity in our WH, the rest of the world will again view us as something other than school yard bullies, and we can begin the healing process. It won't be easy though, and it will never start with more of the same.
Reply
-
-
Global_WarmerComment removed: Abusive
-
HMMaceComment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
Neutral
automan9091 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just what America needs... A President who was raised Muslim, who has long time friends with terrorists and racists, who is a Marxist, who has no experience at all, has no clue on how we need to drill our own oil. He is a total disaster.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.