Do you think Colonel Peters is correct?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I think it is pretty obvious that Timmie didn't even read what the Colonel said. He said nothing about nation building, he said nothing about nukes, he DID to bomb them, kill them, and move on to the next target (we never target civilians (since World War II anyway) so that means military targets). He also said to accept that we were at war and to vocalize that the enemy is Islamic terrorism.

JDB ... you do realize that the ONLY way anyone can argue against engaging in "pre-emptive" military activities to eliminate the "queen" of the Muslim terrorists to stop them multiplying is to steer the dialogue to the extremes of ..

.. killing innocent people and using nuclear weapons ...

... not to mention spuriously attempting to blame those "evil doers" Bush/Cheney.

I guess their "point" is that the Muslim terrorists are "justified" in slaughtering noncombatants, women, and children because of "Bush/Cheney."

The same defective thinking caused the deaths recently of 2 NY cops.

It will also "justify" the Robinhood theory of bank robberies ... and the blaming of other domestic crimes of violence on "poverty" .... and "big business" ... as well as the "rich folks" in our society.

[Whirlaway]

I prefer Fox contributors Generals McIerney and Jack Keane...Peters is an overbearing lecturer.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Already posted the evidence, speedy. Your failure to appreciate its meaning is wholly your problem, speedy.

Where???? When??? Please tell us in what post in what thread you posted the evidence.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Where???? When??? Please tell us in what post in what thread you posted the evidence.

Your failure to understand lies wholly with you, speedy.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Your failure to understand lies wholly with you, speedy.

Translation: He had none.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Translation: He had none.

I have to agree. Simple question asked to a simple person -- result -- no response.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have to agree. Simple question asked to a simple person -- result -- no response.

When was the last time you purchased a weapon or ammunition, speedy? That is the basis for your ignorance, speedy: you have no understanding of what is going on.

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Translation: He had none.

What? All of the emoticons were too embarrassed to do your talking for you, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

... you have no understanding of what is going on.

If he doesn't, he has a lot of "company" .... but I think most of it (not necessarily his, if he doesn't) is "denial' and the refusal to address the issue.

The assaultS in Paris were not digital computer games ... it was real shit.

It has occurred in this country, but it's been marginalized and dismissed.

To repeat the words on 9/11/2001 of our current Secretary of State

"We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. ... we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

When was the last time you purchased a weapon or ammunition, speedy? That is the basis for your ignorance, speedy: you have no understanding of what is going on.



What? All of the emoticons were too embarrassed to do your talking for you, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp?

I am surprised you replied without a emoticon chicken dick, you are like Pavlov's dog with them. <..Will this help?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

When was the last time you purchased a weapon or ammunition, speedy? That is the basis for your ignorance, speedy: you have no understanding of what is going on.

I have never purchased a handgun or rifle in my life. So what?

The question is what have the Liberals done to impact your freedoms of speech and religion? We all understand your narrow-minded views on gun control so there is not much use in going there. Let's narrow it down to speech and religion.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have never purchased a handgun or rifle in my life. So what?

The question is what have the Liberals done to impact your freedoms of speech and religion? We all understand your narrow-minded views on gun control so there is not much use in going there. Let's narrow it down to speech and religion.

So, speedy, you admit you haven't a fucking clue about the additional restrictions and limitations imposed by the lib-retard crowd and how those restrictions and limitations infringe upon the rights of gun owners. Further, does your dumb-ass imagine that those pastors in Houston are not spending time and money to defend themselves -- defend their right to free speech and religion -- against the lib-retard assault against their rights, speedy? Does your dumb-ass not fathom how that effort and expense doesn't curtail their right to free religion and speech, speedy?

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

I am surprised you replied without a emoticon chicken dick, you are like Pavlov's dog with them. <..Will this help?

That must be your thumb you alternate between your ass and your mouth as a pacifier, Eatkum the Inbred Chimp.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I prefer Fox contributors Generals McIerney and Jack Keane...Peters is an overbearing lecturer.

McInerney lost some of his credibility postulating that the missing Malaysian airliner was in Afghanistan.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The question is what have the Liberals done to impact your freedoms of speech or religion

Let's narrow it down to speech and religion.

What does that have to do with what Colonel Peters says?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

What does that have to do with what Colonel Peters says?

Nothing at all. Here is the post (#45 in this thread) by NEVERGAVEITATHOUGHT.

"Liberals are taking our liberties you ignoramus" .

I'm responding to that post by simply asking what liberties the Liberals supposedly are taking from him or anyone else. If it is off subject, blame him.

[Old-T]

It is almost impossible to pass ANY law without adversely affecting SOMEONE'S rights in some way. But as usual, IB the myopic biased blowhard only see it from one side. The truth is government is intended to find an acceptable balance of rights. The Wackos and Thumpers of any persuasion really don't want balance, they only want THEIR rights protected. Which end of the spectrum prevented me from buying a bottle of wine until 1PM last Sunday? Which set of political believers tell my neighbors down the street that one of them can't be covered under th heir SO's health care because they are both women? Which end of the political/religeous spectrum turned my 94 year old aunt into a criminal because she used pot to dull cer chronic pain in the last months of her life? The only difference is which rights "your" guys want to protect me from.