RUSSIAN ANALYST PREDICTS DECLINE AND BREAKUP OF USA

[Guest bleeds]

Only one. You must be a (me generation) right wing lunatic.

 

I see. So, it's okay for you to post your drive-by drivel, but when we respond, we're me-generation, right wing lunatics. Nice.

 

Are you joining our little sensitive friend in his pity party? This is fun, remember?

[Guest bleeds]

Funny huh, Duck Butter, Oops I mean applebutter.

 

 

Nice.

 

 

[Fivehead]

Every single transgendered, drug addicted, 370 lb., gothic pillow weeper can get extra beer and cigs now! You may be able to find that special someone in line!

 

And when you find that special someone, maybe you and he can make it to California before that Proposition 8 kicks in. I'd hate to know you were weeping softly into your pillow again.

[applebutter]

Funny huh, Duck Butter, Oops I mean applebutter.

I'm wounded. Wounded to the core, eyeliner. Oops, I mean... never mind, eyeliner.

[Guest bleeds]

I'm wounded. Wounded to the core, eyeliner. Oops, I mean... never mind, eyeliner.

 

 

Eyeliner.

[TiggerTerror]

No, America lost. Nice job Judas!

I agree that America potentially loses if this is true. But I find it really interesting

that you would use "Judas" to describe someone who had nothing to do with making this arrangement.

 

But of course it could be more liberal drivel.

 

If we are to accept it on the whole as true, then we have to accept that The Dept. of

Homeland Security is a recent addition to the cabinet. Carter, Clinton, Gore, Obama, Ms.

Clinton, had nothing to do with its creation or authorizing it to enter into agreements of

this sort.

 

To me, this is not a surprising outcome considering the gestapo tactics of Chairman W in the

guise of National Security. As this becomes more widely spread by the liberal media, his

support machine will spin it to be another great move to keep the radicals from effecting an

attack on American soil. Just when I was beginning to believe that we had Obama to worry

about.

 

Sideliner, If you see a win for "we" in this, I don't think "WE" is "US".

[Straw]

I agree that America potentially loses if this is true. But I find it really interesting

that you would use "Judas" to describe someone who had nothing to do with making this arrangement.

 

But of course it could be more liberal drivel.

 

If we are to accept it on the whole as true, then we have to accept that The Dept. of

Homeland Security is a recent addition to the cabinet. Carter, Clinton, Gore, Obama, Ms.

Clinton, had nothing to do with its creation or authorizing it to enter into agreements of

this sort.

 

To me, this is not a surprising outcome considering the gestapo tactics of Chairman W in the

guise of National Security. As this becomes more widely spread by the liberal media, his

support machine will spin it to be another great move to keep the radicals from effecting an

attack on American soil. Just when I was beginning to believe that we had Obama to worry

about.

 

Sideliner, If you see a win for "we" in this, I don't think "WE" is "US".

 

1. I wasn't talking to you so why should it bother you?

2. I actually like Sideliner and he and I joke with each other quit often.

3. You know as well as I that after 9/11, Bush was in a no win situation. You Liberals cowards would have complained and criticized no matter what he did.

4. If we didnt go to war and got attacked again, you would have said "See, the idiot should have gone to war".

5. My family is safe, thats all I worry about!

[Guest bleeds]

Let me ask you something TT. Do you really think President Bush is making any decisions right now without Obama being consulted first? In fact, both have said they collaborate on everything right now.

 

Chairman W. Nice.

 

Since you obviously believe President Bush to be a Hitler type (remember, you said gestapo, not me), care to give us some legitimate instances which caused you to feel that way? I mean, as strongly as you feel about your President, surely you can tell us why.

 

BTW, you're a pathetic American.

[TiggerTerror]

Better check again. Bush just allowed the millitary to base 20,000 troups in the U.S. for terorist and natural disaster. I don't believe it a bit. More like uprisings. U.S. Military also sign treaty with Canada and Mexico to allow thier troops to come in should anything happen. Obama also want to expand on this using the civilian national force. This will include the Texas National Guard - changing it from getting its marching orders from Govonor to National - (Obama)

 

A lot of people are beggining to see the big picture now. Hope it is not to late. Let me know when it starts need to stock up on food and ammo.

Identify yourself, are you friend or foe. You seem to be speaking both sides of the issue. Is Bush in cahoots with Obama? Why would he be setting up a civilian military force for him to use against us? How could Obama already be making civil disturbance assistance agreements with foreign governments before he was elected? Something is rotten and it may not just be in Denmark.

 

Is this some mean spirited joke where, in the punch line Obama gives Alaska and Minister Palin back to Russia?

[Guest bleeds]

TT, just wondering how you feel about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan.

[TiggerTerror]

Let me ask you something TT. Do you really think President Bush is making any decisions right now without Obama being consulted first? In fact, both have said they collaborate on everything right now.

 

Chairman W. Nice.

 

Since you obviously believe President Bush to be a Hitler type (remember, you said gestapo, not me), care to give us some legitimate instances which caused you to feel that way? I mean, as strongly as you feel about your President, surely you can tell us why.

 

BTW, you're a pathetic American.

The date from the article was back in April, before it was clear who even the candidates would be, let alone the PEOTUS. You can let him off, if that is your choice. Their are various legitamate views on any subject.

 

___Teacup

[Guest bleeds]

If you knew me as well as you think you do, you would know I've been a staunch critic of President Bush. IF this is his doing, I will be no less critical of him now.

[TiggerTerror]

TT, just wondering how you feel about Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Louis Farrakhan.

Al Sharpton- A product of the only environment that he knows. His views, as are yours, are shaped by what he knows or at least how he perceives the things around him. He feels led to step out and lead, because no one around him has stepped out. To lead, you have to be going somewhere, and he is not in on that one yet. The problem with him is that people will follow him to a degree. Bottom line is he gets some minor attention for some issues that are real to people that live in the overpopulated urban areas. Truth is he has no real credibility, because he has chosen some bogus causes that had some media appeal.

 

Jesse Jackson- Strayed away from the area where he could have continued to be effective, by helping people in the inner city. Sucked in by the lure of personal glory of politics. Not a heavy enough hitter. Would not hit heavy or fight dirty if he knew how.

 

Louis Farrakhan- Despised by all because of his apparent use of violence and strong arm tactics. Would not be satified if reparations were offered tommorow. Only a force to the underbelly of his own organization, because he gave them a place. Similar in purpose to an urban gang leader, that can show his face in public.

 

Is there a reason that you chose these three? Surely you don't give them any regard, if their own people do not.

 

If you want to talk about black leaders, let's start by asking the question why Sarah of the Great White North was a more viable selection than Dr. Rice to fortify the GOP ticket.

[Straw]

If Im not mistaken, Rice said she wouldnt not accept the VP spot if ask but I wish she was the VP choice. Hell, I wish she was the POTUS choice!

[TiggerTerror]

If you knew me as well as you think you do, you would know I've been a staunch critic of President Bush. IF this is his doing, I will be no less critical of him now.

I am not trying to judge you in any way. The choice is yours. Let him off or no. I do not know the "right answer". This at first glance seems disturbing to me, because we as americans have suffered the greatest blows to our perceived civil liberties under this administration that I have ever known of. If it was good or meant to be good for us, I would think that we would know more about it than you or I appear to.

 

___Teacup

[Straw]

She would have been the best choice as far as I'm concerned but I remember Obama saying some negative things about her before the choice was made.

[TiggerTerror]

Let me ask you something TT. Do you really think President Bush is making any decisions right now without Obama being consulted first? In fact, both have said they collaborate on everything right now.

 

Chairman W. Nice.

 

Since you obviously believe President Bush to be a Hitler type (remember, you said gestapo, not me), care to give us some legitimate instances which caused you to feel that way? I mean, as strongly as you feel about your President, surely you can tell us why.

 

BTW, you're a pathetic American.

Surely we can agree that we are not in Kansas any more!

[BluePirate]

If you want to talk about black leaders, let's start by asking the question why Sarah of the Great White North was a more viable selection than Dr. Rice to fortify the GOP ticket.

 

Surely you jest...

 

McCain was, to a degree, also running against the Bush administration. Had he chosen Condi Rice, he would have fastened the ties to Bush that obama was campaigning on. Also... I haven't heard a great deal of respect for her coming from black America.

[TiggerTerror]

Surely you jest...

 

McCain was, to a degree, also running against the Bush administration. Had he chosen Condi Rice, he would have fastened the ties to Bush that obama was campaigning on. Also... I haven't heard a great deal of respect for her coming from black America.

You have obviously taken the viewpoint that Black americans united and elected Obama. According to the liberal media, that was not the case. If "Black Americans" had been presented with a choice that represented the stability of a McCain administration and the inclusiveness that is missing in the image of the GOP, they could have made that choice over both color and uncertainty.

 

The problem that "Black Americans" have with "More of the Same" is Bush's ties to unscrupolous people.

[TiggerTerror]

Surely you jest...

 

McCain was, to a degree, also running against the Bush administration. Had he chosen Condi Rice, he would have fastened the ties to Bush that obama was campaigning on. Also... I haven't heard a great deal of respect for her coming from black America.

My point is, "Why not present the best ticket, not try to win Hillary supporters by putting Palin in a subordinate position!"

[BluePirate]

You have obviously taken the viewpoint that Black americans united and elected Obama. According to the liberal media, that was not the case. If "Black Americans" had been presented with a choice that represented the stability of a McCain administration and the inclusiveness that is missing in the image of the GOP, they could have made that choice over both color and uncertainty.

 

The problem that "Black Americans" have with "More of the Same" is Bush's ties to unscrupolous people.

 

"THAT"S NOT TRUE!" <-- Mike Gundy joke... :clap:

 

You honestly believe black America was divided with of those voting, somewhere around 96% voted for barrack? Please. Could the GOP have done a better job in gaining their vote? Nope, not with the opponent having lots of melanin.

[Guest bleeds]

I am not trying to judge you in any way. The choice is yours. Let him off or no. I do not know the "right answer". This at first glance seems disturbing to me, because we as americans have suffered the greatest blows to our perceived civil liberties under this administration that I have ever known of. If it was good or meant to be good for us, I would think that we would know more about than you or I appear to.

 

___Teacup

 

 

You know, you come up with this hooey without backing any of your statements. The fact you know so little about our country is no surprise to any of us, but it shows your ignorance when you post comments like the one above.

 

I would recommend you study WWII when Japanese Americans were rounded up and kept in concentration camps. That might give you a more realistic idea of what the loss of civil liberties really means.

 

But please, give us some ideas of how President Bush abridged our civil liberties.

 

I can't wait.

[BluePirate]

My point is, "Why not present the best ticket, not try to win Hillary supporters by putting Palin in a subordinate position!"

 

We lost any chance of presenting "the best ticket" when your liberal buddies in the northeast crossed over, sticking us with McCain.

[Guest bleeds]

Surely we can agree that we are not in Kansas any more!

 

 

I've made reference to this many times in response to Bush-haters who can't tell us why, but I'll do it again just for you.

 

Up until the last two years (the same time frame that democrats took over congress), I have prospered more than in any other time in my life. My business is more successful as the result of the Bush tax cuts and the conservative attitude of allowing taxpayers to keep more of their own money.

 

How is that bad?

[Guest bleeds]

Al Sharpton- A product of the only environment that he knows. His views, as are yours, are shaped by what he knows or at least how he perceives the things around him. He feels led to step out and lead, because no one around him has stepped out. To lead, you have to be going somewhere, and he is not in on that one yet. The problem with him is that people will follow him to a degree. Bottom line is he gets some minor attention for some issues that are real to people that live in the overpopulated urban areas. Truth is he has no real credibility, because he has chosen some bogus causes that had some media appeal.

 

Jesse Jackson- Strayed away from the area where he could have continued to be effective, by helping people in the inner city. Sucked in by the lure of personal glory of politics. Not a heavy enough hitter. Would not hit heavy or fight dirty if he knew how.

 

Louis Farrakhan- Despised by all because of his apparent use of violence and strong arm tactics. Would not be satified if reparations were offered tommorow. Only a force to the underbelly of his own organization, because he gave them a place. Similar in purpose to an urban gang leader, that can show his face in public.

 

Is there a reason that you chose these three? Surely you don't give them any regard, if their own people do not.

 

If you want to talk about black leaders, let's start by asking the question why Sarah of the Great White North was a more viable selection than Dr. Rice to fortify the GOP ticket.

 

 

Dr. Rice didn't want the job.