Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong, you poor little boobie.
I found a very specific example of war time speech which Churchill gave in London. It doesn't fit with your sad little world view. Deal with it, bub.
How many terrorist attacks did we suffer after Dubya called them out? How many have we suffered since The One has been in office?Yeah he is off "kicking-ass" at some concert or something...maybe he is "kicking ass" on the basketball court today or at the country club.
Better than acting like a cowboy saying "Osama wanted Dead or Alive" or President Bush telling terrorists to "Bring 'Em on." But then again, I'm sure Liability and Boe cheered that.
As for the whole kicking ass comment, the CEO of BP needs a ass kicking for his comments and you'd agree if you've seen any of them.
All you did was take a quote from Bush - and I found a comparable sentiment from one of Churchill's speeches. You don't like the fact that you have been proven wrong.
Sack up, bub.
You know what Boe, instead of playing the "NO U" game with someone who ironically considers themselves morally superior and more mature. I'll be a gentleman and let you have the last word. Though I'd be surprised you wouldn't post again just to say I had the last word. However, feel free to claim whatever you like. Just know, it doesn't make it true. 
What are you babbling about? You've spent this much time trying to defend George W. Bush's comments all so you can say "HAHAHAHAA you lose".
What a sad being you are to think there are such things like winning and losing on a message board. If you actually spent your entire time wallowing in ignorance against me to just say that, then may I suggest going outside for a nice walk?
You seem to not get that Dubya even admitted his remarks were gone.
The first thing that came to mind when asked what was his biggest personal mistake:
YouTube - Bush Regrets Saying "Bring 'em on"
How many terrorist attacks did we suffer after Dubya called them out? How many have we suffered since The One has been in office?
How many dead troops did we have after Dubya called the terrorists out? After all, they are the ones who are in harm's way every day.
Oh, you're forgetting. They're not terrorist attacks - they're Man-Caused Disasters. I'm surprised they said Man instead of Person. What's up with that?
How many terrorist attacks did we suffer after Dubya called them out? How many have we suffered since The One has been in office?Better than acting like a cowboy saying "Osama wanted Dead or Alive" or President Bush telling terrorists to "Bring 'Em on." But then again, I'm sure Liability and Boe cheered that.
As for the whole kicking ass comment, the CEO of BP needs a ass kicking for his comments and you'd agree if you've seen any of them.
We haven't been attacked, sucessfully, since 9/11/01 here as far as I know. If I am wrong about that post a link to the news story.
Both statements by both presidents were poor form and made me feel dissapointment.
There is a very good piece in today's Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Alien in the White House" that merits some attention:
Dorothy Rabinowitz: The Alien in the White House - WSJ.com
Some interesting observations from that piece:
Id.* * * *
A great part of America now understands that this president's sense of identification lies elsewhere, and is in profound ways unlike theirs. He is hard put to sound convincingly like the leader of the nation, because he is, at heart and by instinct, the voice mainly of his ideological class. He is the alien in the White House, a matter having nothing to do with delusions about his birthplace cherished by the demented fringe.
One of his first reforms was to rid the White House of the bust of Winston Churchilla gift from Tony Blairby packing it back off to 10 Downing Street. A cloudlet of mystery has surrounded the subject ever since, but the central fact stands clear. The new administration had apparently found no place in our national house of many rooms for the British leader who lives on so vividly in the American mind. Churchill, face of our shared wartime struggle, dauntless rallier of his nation who continues, so remarkably, to speak to ours. For a president to whom such associations are alien, ridding the White House of Churchill would, of course, have raised no second thoughts.
Far greater strangeness has since flowed steadily from Washington. The president's appointees, transmitters of policy, go forth with singular passion week after week, delivering the latest inversion of reality. Their work is not easy, focused as it is on a current prime preoccupation of this White Housethat is, finding ways to avoid any public mention of the indisputable Islamist identity of the enemy at war with us. No small trick that, but their efforts go forward in public spectacles matchless in their absurdityunnerving in what they confirm about our current guardians of law and national security.
Consider the hapless Eric Holder, America's attorney general, confronting the question put to him by Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) of the House Judicary Committee on May 13.
Did Mr. Holder think that in the last three terrorist attempts on this soil, one of them successful (Maj. Nidal Hasan's murder of 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, preceded by his shout of "Allahu Akbar!"), that radical Islam might have played any role at all? Mr. Holder seemed puzzled by the question. "People have different reasons" he finally answereda response he repeated three times. He didn't want "to say anything negative about any religion."
And who can forget the exhortations on jihad by John Brennan, Mr. Obama's chief adviser on counterterrorism? Mr. Brennan has in the past charged that Americans lack sensitivity to the Muslim world, and that we have particularly failed to credit its peace-loving disposition. In a May 26 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mr. Brennan held forth fervently, if not quite comprehensibly, on who our enemy was not: "Our enemy is not terrorism because terrorism is just a tactic. Our enemy is not terror because terror is a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear."
He went on to announce, sternly, that we do not refer to our enemies as Islamists or jihadists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam. How then might we be permitted to describe our enemies? One hint comes from another of Mr. Brennan's pronouncements in that speech: That "violent extremists are victims of political, economic and social forces."
Yes, that would work. Consider the news bulletins we could have read: "Police have arrested Faisal Shahzad, victim of political, economic and social forces living in Connecticut, for efforts to set off a car bomb explosion in Times Square." Plotters in Afghanistan and Yemen, preparing for their next attempt at mass murder in America, could only have listened in wonderment. They must have marvelled in particular on learning that this was the chief counterterrorism adviser to the president of the United States.
* * * *
Id.* * * Janet Napolitano and her immortal "man-caused disasters'' * * * *
Id.* * * *
It is a White House that has focused consistently on the sensitivities of the world communityas it is euphemistically knowna body of which the president of the United States frequently appears to view himself as a representative at large.
It is what has caused this president and his counterterrorist brain trust to deem it acceptable to insult Americans with nonsensical evasions concerning the enemy we face. It is this focus that caused Mr. Holder to insist on holding the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in lower Manhattan, despite the rage this decision induced in New Yorkers, and later to insist if not there, then elsewhere in New York. This was all to be a dazzling exhibition for that world communityproof of Mr. Obama's moral reclamation program and that America had been delivered from the darkness of the Bush years.
It was why this administration tapped officials like Michael Posner, assistant secretary of state for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor. Among his better known contributions to political discourse was a 2005 address in which he compared the treatment of Muslim-Americans in the United States after 9/11 with the plight of the Japanese-Americans interned in camps after Pearl Harbor. During a human-rights conference held in China this May, Mr. Posner cited the new Arizona immigration law by way of assuring the Chinese, those exemplary guardians of freedom, that the United States too had its problems with discrimination.
So there we were: America and China, in the same boat on human rights, two buddies struggling for reform. For this view of reality, which brought withering criticism in Congress and calls for his resignation, Mr. Posner has been roundly embraced in the State Department as a superbly effective representative. * * * *
And so forth.
It seems to me that Rabinowitz hit the nail squarely on the head.
We have a President?
Yeah he is off "kicking-ass" at some concert or something...maybe he is "kicking ass" on the basketball court today or at the country club.
Correction: he's still consulting with experts to figure out whose ass to kick.
Get ready to be called a Racist now.
We have a President?
Yeah he is off "kicking-ass" at some concert or something...maybe he is "kicking ass" on the basketball court today or at the country club.
Correction: he's still consulting with experts to figure out whose ass to kick.
