Why are Republicans their devotees using cheap shots?

[NiteShift]

But to put one's energy in the Democratic Party that promotes outright evil and has a Socialist, secular humanist philosophy in general - and to call yourself a Christian, is very, very troublesome.

btw, I'll assume you didn't mean me specifically here, since I don't promote the Democratic candidate, won't be voting for him, and I don't believe you would question a fellow poster's Christian faith in any event.

 

[KenH]

Yes, if that's where Bin Laden is. Pakistan's government has been helpful to us. The general idea is to attack our enemies, not our allies.

Moot point, since Obama will have undoubtedly changed his mind by now.

I disagree with your lack of willingness to go after the person behind the attacks on 9/11/2001.

How is going after bin Laden going the same as after Pakistan? I think that idea is flawed.

 

[NiteShift]

I disagree with your lack of willingness to go after the person behind the attacks on 9/11/2001.

How is going after bin Laden going the same as after Pakistan? I think that idea is flawed.

Bin Laden, according to special ops types, is hiding in Pakistan. Obama knows that, everyone knows that. Pak has not given us permission to enter their country and look for him. It would be rude to cross an allied country's border and go hunting.

Without their cooperation, we'd have to find another supply route into Afghanistan. Geography dictates that would leave Iran or Russia.

 

[KenH]

I am not in favor of allowing Pakistan to have veto power over defending the United States.

 

[just-want-peace]

I am not in favor of allowing Pakistan to have veto power over defending the United States.

This just may be a big part of why (?) Ken seems so unstable in his views.

He seem to read into a post whatever suits him (or that he can "imply") rather than what is actually said.:BangHead:

Not very productive, but it does keep you on your toes!! :thumbs:

 

[NiteShift]

This just may be a big part of why (?) Ken seems so unstable in his views.

He seem to read into a post whatever suits him (or that he can "imply") rather than what is actually said.:BangHead:

Not very productive, but it does keep you on your toes!! :thumbs:

lol...Personally, I think Ken's motivation here is simply to stick a thumb in the collective eye of Republicans, after they rejected Mr. Paul.

 

[Andy T.]

lol...Personally, I think Ken's motivation here is simply to stick a thumb in the collective eye of Republicans, after they rejected Mr. Paul.

Probably right - in a word, he's vindictive.

 

[JustChristian]

Bin Laden, according to special ops types, is hiding in Pakistan. Obama knows that, everyone knows that. Pak has not given us permission to enter their country and look for him. It would be rude to cross an allied country's border and go hunting.

Without their cooperation, we'd have to find another supply route into Afghanistan. Geography dictates that would leave Iran or Russia.

GW Bush turned DOWN an offer by the Taliban to deliver bin Laden to a third nation for trial. Bush said that we didn't need a trial. We already knew he was guilty. Why did Bush turn down an offer to put bin Laaden on trial? He didn't want for him to tell the truth about 9/11.

 

[KenH]

in a word, he's vindictive.

Get off my back, Tigers fan. I am not the issue.

 

[JustChristian]

GW Bush turned DOWN an offer by the Taliban to deliver bin Laden to a third nation for trial. Bush said that we didn't need a trial. We already knew he was guilty. Why did Bush turn down an offer to put bin Laaden on trial? He didn't want for him to tell the truth about 9/11.

guardian.co.uk,


Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
9.30pm update: * Taliban demand evidence of Bin Laden's guilt

Sunday October 14 2001 22:19 BST


President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".

In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

 

[Andy T.]

Get off my back, Tigers fan. I am not the issue.

Growl.

I'll get off your back when you stop making disparaging remarks about "Christian conservatives" and "Right-Wingers," etc. and stop making triumphant remarks about Obama will be the next president, etc. as lame attempts to get a rile out of people. This is a discussion board and we are all personalities. We are not robots who impassionately talk about facts, so quit playing the "I'm not the issue" card. It's getting old. Your attempts to be a vindictive thorn in everyone's side do not go unnoticed. In summary, your posts make you come across as a royal jerk.

 

[Pastor Larry]

n Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

Um, didn't he claim he was behind that? That is a confession. This was an easy one.

 

[ajg1959]

I am not in favor of allowing Pakistan to have veto power over defending the United States.

It is clear that Iraq was at least funding terrorists to attack us. Why would you suggest that we invade Pakistan when you were against invading Iraq?

Or, were you all for invading Iraq in the beginning, and now have succumbed to the influence of MSNBC?

AJ

 

[KenH]

It is clear that Iraq was at least funding terrorists to attack us.

Got any proof?

 

[ajg1959]

Got any proof?

More than you have that they werent. Do you really believe that Hussein hated us and wanted us destroyed but didnt fund terrorists to attack us?

AJ

 

[KenH]

Just as I thought, you have no proof.

 

[ajg1959]

Just as I thought, you have no proof.

Neither do you. I am a welder, not the president or an CIA official, and neither are you. However, according to the intelligence reports that have been released (I am sure we only hear a small percentage of what really goes on because of national security issues), Hussein was funding several terrorists groups.

Ken, you hate Bush, and will never admit anything that he has done was the right thing, and, you will make any excuse to protect and promote the liberals, regardless of how many babies they kill or how they change marriage, or how much socialism they force on you. (I use the word "force" it is really a slick indoctrination that fuzzy warm feeling people fall for)

AJ

 

[KenH]

Neither do you.

You made the charge, not me.

 

[Bible-boy]

Could it be because there really is not that much difference in action in the parties?

Could it be that the differences only extend to pronouncements, policies, and platforms and don't extend to performance?

Could the GOP be saying the 'right' thing to insure that they don't lose the massive Evangelical vote?

Could it all just be politics?

First, you have made an accusation that the GOP and its supporters are using "cheap shots," but you failed to identify of the supposed "cheap shots." So at this point the OP just looks like a cheap shot...

 

[ajg1959]

You made the charge, not me.

Yes I did...the intelligence reports that were released, and common logic would lead one to believe that , as an enemy of the US that Hussein was funding terrorists.

But mostly the intelligence reports.....they cant all be misleading.

AJ