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.
Epic Fail
Any credit for kills belong to the military and CIA. The economy isn't the only thing Obama inherited. Leave it up to Obama and nether would exist today.
And Bush killed or captured 70% of al Qaeda's leadership.....something Obama and his drone assassination tactics cannot match.
Yeah...circumstances are different now; don't ya think? Did you know that more of Hitlers troops were killed in the first years of World War II than in the last year? Probably because there was more of them. Epic Fail #2. Didn't bring your A game tonight.
Obama is solid on National Defense; mischaracterize it all you wish. Frankly, its humorous to see the Righties swear up and down that somehow the current President doesn't get the same accolades because of the consonant next to his name on an election ballot.
Blind hatred is, I'm sure, a pain to have but its sorta fun to watch the flailing posts and the shouts at the wind. Nice rant though. Very, very humorous.
Obama is not solid on National Defense.
I work in the DOD. I see what he's doing. Most of it is not getting reported.
Obama is beginning to gut the military in the middle of two wars and a static military action. His ROEs not only handcuff his troops but Hogtie them giving advantages to the enemy in Afghanistan.
The only reason you think Obama is strong on Defense is because his slobbering press is trying desperately to give that impression. However our troops are becoming burnt out. Some have seen 4 or 5 combat deployments, something that was unheard of even during WWII. Obama has also announced that we are withdrawing long before we intend on doing it. The withdrawals are to help his re-election, not because it is a tactical imperative.
Obama's drone attacks are merely stirring up a hornet's nest instead of accomplishing military objectives. They look good but the end result is not what you think. It does not accomplish anything other then kill a few Ragheads.
Enemies of liberty never rest...neither should we.Yeah...circumstances are different now; don't ya think? Did you know that more of Hitlers troops were killed in the first years of World War II than in the last year? Probably because there was more of them. Epic Fail #2. Didn't bring your A game tonight.
Obama is solid on National Defense; mischaracterize it all you wish. Frankly, its humorous to see the Righties swear up and down that somehow the current President doesn't get the same accolades because of the consonant next to his name on an election ballot.
Blind hatred is, I'm sure, a pain to have but its sorta fun to watch the flailing posts and the shouts at the wind. Nice rant though. Very, very humorous.
Obama is not solid on National Defense.
I work in the DOD. I see what he's doing. Most of it is not getting reported.
Obama is beginning to gut the military in the middle of two wars and a static military action. His ROEs not only handcuff his troops but Hogtie them giving advantages to the enemy in Afghanistan.
The only reason you think Obama is strong on Defense is because his slobbering press is trying desperately to give that impression. However our troops are becoming burnt out. Some have seen 4 or 5 combat deployments, something that was unheard of even during WWII. Obama has also announced that we are withdrawing long before we intend on doing it. The withdrawals are to help his re-election, not because it is a tactical imperative.
Obama's drone attacks are merely stirring up a hornet's nest instead of accomplishing military objectives. They look good but the end result is not what you think. It does not accomplish anything other then kill a few Ragheads.
*chuckle*
Yeah killing enemy leader after enemy leader using a process that is all at once, precise, deadly, and above all else--fucking terrorizing to a terrorist who realizes that death could come from above at any moment without as much as whisper of a warning --while endangering a bare minimum of our troops is silly.
But lets move from that fact to the topic at hand, your blind hatred for Mr. Obama and his obvious successes to correct---no, not correct--his obvious enhancements to Bush's very active and I might add very appropriate response to 9/11....
So, we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now. A decade. How much longer do you say it will take, in your "professional" opinion, to do the job (whatever that job may be)? Another 10 years? Twenty years? Fifty years? Don't answer that, we know that YOU don't know. Instead, you'll simply say, "As long as it takes."
Your math is pretty poor candycorn. How many terrorists were killed under the Bush adminstartion versus Obama's? The number are far and away much higher under Bush. A few top people are killed after years on the run and finally make a misstep. This is the victory of time, not a president.
I was told that if America is hard for more than 4 hours it has to see a doctor.
Your math is pretty poor candycorn. How many terrorists were killed under the Bush adminstartion versus Obama's? The number are far and away much higher under Bush. A few top people are killed after years on the run and finally make a misstep. This is the victory of time, not a president.
Your understanding of logistics is petty poor.
If you fire a shotgun at a beehive, you'll kill far more bees than you would 10 minutes later by firing the same gun at the same bee hive that remains. The reason, the first shot takes out most of them.
Shocking is the fact that you don't see that. I am thinking you're smart enough to see that but you simply don't want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Bush did kill more terrorists than Mr. Obama but there were more terrorists to kill when Bush did it; don'tcha think?
Besides according to Muddy, the President gets no credit for it; the military does. Mr. Bush or Mir. Obama get no credit for killing anybody. Let me guess, the rules change for Mr. Obama; right?
Your math is pretty poor candycorn. How many terrorists were killed under the Bush adminstartion versus Obama's? The number are far and away much higher under Bush. A few top people are killed after years on the run and finally make a misstep. This is the victory of time, not a president.
Your understanding of logistics is petty poor.
If you fire a shotgun at a beehive, you'll kill far more bees than you would 10 minutes later by firing the same gun at the same bee hive that remains. The reason, the first shot takes out most of them.
Shocking is the fact that you don't see that. I am thinking you're smart enough to see that but you simply don't want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Bush did kill more terrorists than Mr. Obama but there were more terrorists to kill when Bush did it; don'tcha think?
Besides according to Muddy, the President gets no credit for it; the military does. Mr. Bush or Mir. Obama get no credit for killing anybody. Let me guess, the rules change for Mr. Obama; right?
Could that be the reason for his demand they take off thier bedroom slippers and put on thier marching shoes?Obama is speaking of his own base being soft. Instead of sending their money into his campaign they are claiming they don't have enough to eat.
Instead of pounding the pavement recruiting support for his re-election they are sitting in their pajamas playing video games, purchased with welfare and unemployment checks.
Your math is pretty poor candycorn. How many terrorists were killed under the Bush adminstartion versus Obama's? The number are far and away much higher under Bush. A few top people are killed after years on the run and finally make a misstep. This is the victory of time, not a president.
Your understanding of logistics is petty poor.
If you fire a shotgun at a beehive, you'll kill far more bees than you would 10 minutes later by firing the same gun at the same bee hive that remains. The reason, the first shot takes out most of them.
Shocking is the fact that you don't see that. I am thinking you're smart enough to see that but you simply don't want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Bush did kill more terrorists than Mr. Obama but there were more terrorists to kill when Bush did it; don'tcha think?
Besides according to Muddy, the President gets no credit for it; the military does. Mr. Bush or Mir. Obama get no credit for killing anybody. Let me guess, the rules change for Mr. Obama; right?
Thanks for agreeing Bush got many more terrorists than Obama. Your confusing logistics with tactics. Unless your suggesting Obama moves the terrorists around. Dufus.
Your math is pretty poor candycorn. How many terrorists were killed under the Bush adminstartion versus Obama's? The number are far and away much higher under Bush. A few top people are killed after years on the run and finally make a misstep. This is the victory of time, not a president.
Your understanding of logistics is petty poor.
If you fire a shotgun at a beehive, you'll kill far more bees than you would 10 minutes later by firing the same gun at the same bee hive that remains. The reason, the first shot takes out most of them.
Shocking is the fact that you don't see that. I am thinking you're smart enough to see that but you simply don't want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Bush did kill more terrorists than Mr. Obama but there were more terrorists to kill when Bush did it; don'tcha think?
Besides according to Muddy, the President gets no credit for it; the military does. Mr. Bush or Mir. Obama get no credit for killing anybody. Let me guess, the rules change for Mr. Obama; right?
I give Obama credit just like I give him credit for killing our border enforcement personal.
Your understanding of logistics is petty poor.
If you fire a shotgun at a beehive, you'll kill far more bees than you would 10 minutes later by firing the same gun at the same bee hive that remains. The reason, the first shot takes out most of them.
Shocking is the fact that you don't see that. I am thinking you're smart enough to see that but you simply don't want to give credit where credit is due. Mr. Bush did kill more terrorists than Mr. Obama but there were more terrorists to kill when Bush did it; don'tcha think?
Besides according to Muddy, the President gets no credit for it; the military does. Mr. Bush or Mir. Obama get no credit for killing anybody. Let me guess, the rules change for Mr. Obama; right?
Thanks for agreeing Bush got many more terrorists than Obama. Your confusing logistics with tactics. Unless your suggesting Obama moves the terrorists around. Dufus.
Except that the terrorist Bush killed were the ones out in the open. Road apples in comparison. He had basically 7 years. He had no clue where Osama was.
Dufus.
The Republicans are such pussies that they were terrified at the prospect of AQ members being put on trial here.
The Republicans are such pussies that they were terrified at the prospect of AQ members being put on trial here.
Thanks for agreeing Bush got many more terrorists than Obama. Your confusing logistics with tactics. Unless your suggesting Obama moves the terrorists around. Dufus.
Except that the terrorist Bush killed were the ones out in the open. Road apples in comparison. He had basically 7 years. He had no clue where Osama was.
Dufus.
They killed them in the mountains of Afghanistan dufus. Hardly out in the open. Terrorist leadership sends others out to do their killing. It took Obama ignoring borders of friendly nations to get the leadership. In the long run, that will probably hurt us more than anything Bush did or did not do.
Yeah...circumstances are different now; don't ya think? Did you know that more of Hitlers troops were killed in the first years of World War II than in the last year? Probably because there was more of them. Epic Fail #2. Didn't bring your A game tonight.
Obama is solid on National Defense; mischaracterize it all you wish. Frankly, its humorous to see the Righties swear up and down that somehow the current President doesn't get the same accolades because of the consonant next to his name on an election ballot.
Blind hatred is, I'm sure, a pain to have but its sorta fun to watch the flailing posts and the shouts at the wind. Nice rant though. Very, very humorous.
Obama is not solid on National Defense.
I work in the DOD. I see what he's doing. Most of it is not getting reported.
Obama is beginning to gut the military in the middle of two wars and a static military action. His ROEs not only handcuff his troops but Hogtie them giving advantages to the enemy in Afghanistan.
The only reason you think Obama is strong on Defense is because his slobbering press is trying desperately to give that impression. However our troops are becoming burnt out. Some have seen 4 or 5 combat deployments, something that was unheard of even during WWII. Obama has also announced that we are withdrawing long before we intend on doing it. The withdrawals are to help his re-election, not because it is a tactical imperative.
Obama's drone attacks are merely stirring up a hornet's nest instead of accomplishing military objectives. They look good but the end result is not what you think. It does not accomplish anything other then kill a few Ragheads.
*chuckle*
Yeah killing enemy leader after enemy leader using a process that is all at once, precise, deadly, and above all else--fucking terrorizing to a terrorist who realizes that death could come from above at any moment without as much as whisper of a warning --while endangering a bare minimum of our troops is silly.
But lets move from that fact to the topic at hand, your blind hatred for Mr. Obama and his obvious successes to correct---no, not correct--his obvious enhancements to Bush's very active and I might add very appropriate response to 9/11....
So, we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now. A decade. How much longer do you say it will take, in your "professional" opinion, to do the job (whatever that job may be)? Another 10 years? Twenty years? Fifty years? Don't answer that, we know that YOU don't know. Instead, you'll simply say, "As long as it takes."
Obama....the pampered little priss who spends more time golfing then any President in our history is telling us that we're soft.
Let me tell you something prick. We don't need an empty-suit like you constantly telling us how fucked up we are. We don't need you apologizing for us to our enemies and then telling us we're lazy and soft.
If we wanted someone to talk shit about us we'd listen to any number of our critics outside this great country.
We don't need you, a man who is supposed to be a public servant, a man who spends most of his time ether complaining about how tough Bush made his job, or making up excuses why he can't fulfill his promises, telling us we are soft.
Man-up bitch. We're tired of your crying and whining. Start taking responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to blame us for your problems.
Rant over.
I would say around the perimeter of the US is soft because it s mostly sand. But when you get into the US, there are many streets highways and that sort of things which would make the America hard.
Signed,
Gracie
Obama is not solid on National Defense.
I work in the DOD. I see what he's doing. Most of it is not getting reported.
Obama is beginning to gut the military in the middle of two wars and a static military action. His ROEs not only handcuff his troops but Hogtie them giving advantages to the enemy in Afghanistan.
The only reason you think Obama is strong on Defense is because his slobbering press is trying desperately to give that impression. However our troops are becoming burnt out. Some have seen 4 or 5 combat deployments, something that was unheard of even during WWII. Obama has also announced that we are withdrawing long before we intend on doing it. The withdrawals are to help his re-election, not because it is a tactical imperative.
Obama's drone attacks are merely stirring up a hornet's nest instead of accomplishing military objectives. They look good but the end result is not what you think. It does not accomplish anything other then kill a few Ragheads.
*chuckle*
Yeah killing enemy leader after enemy leader using a process that is all at once, precise, deadly, and above all else--fucking terrorizing to a terrorist who realizes that death could come from above at any moment without as much as whisper of a warning --while endangering a bare minimum of our troops is silly.
But lets move from that fact to the topic at hand, your blind hatred for Mr. Obama and his obvious successes to correct---no, not correct--his obvious enhancements to Bush's very active and I might add very appropriate response to 9/11....
So, we've been in Afghanistan for 10 years now. A decade. How much longer do you say it will take, in your "professional" opinion, to do the job (whatever that job may be)? Another 10 years? Twenty years? Fifty years? Don't answer that, we know that YOU don't know. Instead, you'll simply say, "As long as it takes."
I think you've seen too many movies.
All killing their leaders does is piss them off. They already have their replacements trained and ready to take over, many even more radical then they were. And the tactics we use are cool and inventive, but they don't really scare these folks. They feel our tactics are cowardly, which means they'll never respect us. Instead it will breed generations of killers that will plague the planet for decades to come.
Btw, we should have gotten out of Afghanistan years ago. There is no "job" to do there. We should have gotten out while Iraq was still going full-bore. Instead we're embroiled in an endless war with a President that is afraid to say the word "Victory" because it offends his senses.
