Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush

[JakeStarkey]

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

Only in the eyes of a dumb **** like you

Oh, I'm *so* wounded! (not)

Which reveals that you are not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and there is only one bulb.

Mainstream and Main Street America rejected the GOP and their unreal domestic and foreign policies. Now grow up, stop being shrill, and write to the point.

 

[JenyEliza]

Only in the eyes of a dumb **** like you

Oh, I'm *so* wounded! (not)

Which reveals that you are not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and there is only one bulb.

Mainstream and Main Street America rejected the GOP and their unreal domestic and foreign policies. Now grow up, stop being shrill, and write to the point.

I did.

Apparently you missed it.

Here:

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

 

[Silfy]

Oh, I'm *so* wounded! (not)

Which reveals that you are not the brightest bulb in the lamp, and there is only one bulb.

Mainstream and Main Street America rejected the GOP and their unreal domestic and foreign policies. Now grow up, stop being shrill, and write to the point.

I did.

Apparently you missed it.

Here:

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

Nothing was established except for the pomposity and arrogant bullshit of the OP

 

[Coyote]

Yes, we were attacked during the Bush years. Let's not pretend the 9-11 attack did not occur under his watch.

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

Speaking of getting "caught up", we were attacked during the Bush years by the Anthrax killer and the Beltway sniper both of which hold the same type of "terrorist credentials" as Hasan.

 

[Liability]

Yes, we were attacked during the Bush years. Let's not pretend the 9-11 attack did not occur under his watch.

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

Speaking of getting "caught up", we were attacked during the Bush years by the Anthrax killer and the Beltway sniper both of which hold the same type of "terrorist credentials" as Hasan.

Already refuted.

Repeating your self-serving but baseless propaganda does nothing to further your position.

 

[The T]

The only source of her claim is the guy who started the thread
He provided no proof whatsoever that Perino meant post 9/11

Now THAT wasn't so hard, was it? Perino SAID what she did. Ever heard of a Freudian slip?

I think my girlfriend got one of those at Victoria Secret's Black Friday Sale today

More power to ya!

 

[Liability]

The only source of her claim is the guy who started the thread
He provided no proof whatsoever that Perino meant post 9/11

Now THAT wasn't so hard, was it? Perino SAID what she did. Ever heard of a Freudian slip?

I think my girlfriend got one of those at Victoria Secret's Black Friday Sale today

Freudian slips come with those built in penis envy enhancers.

So sad.

 

[The T]

Now THAT wasn't so hard, was it? Perino SAID what she did. Ever heard of a Freudian slip?

I think my girlfriend got one of those at Victoria Secret's Black Friday Sale today

Freudian slips come with those built in penis envy enhancers.

So sad.

*

 

[Coyote]

Uhm.....I'm pretty sure we established that way back on page 1.

Get caught up with the class---or get left behind.

Speaking of getting "caught up", we were attacked during the Bush years by the Anthrax killer and the Beltway sniper both of which hold the same type of "terrorist credentials" as Hasan.

Already refuted.

Repeating your self-serving but baseless propaganda does nothing to further your position.

Refuted only if you accept that Hasan was not a terrorist attack, which JenyEliza (to whom I was replying) - seems to consider Hasan's actions a terrorist attack. If you're going to butt in, then at least butt in with the correct information.

Thank you.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled rhetoric

 

[Liability]

Speaking of getting "caught up", we were attacked during the Bush years by the Anthrax killer and the Beltway sniper both of which hold the same type of "terrorist credentials" as Hasan.

Already refuted.

Repeating your self-serving but baseless propaganda does nothing to further your position.

Refuted only if you accept that Hasan was not a terrorist attack, which JenyEliza (to whom I was replying) - seems to consider Hasan's actions a terrorist attack. If you're going to butt in, then at least butt in with the correct information.

Thank you.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled rhetoric

Wrong again, puppy. I arleady refuted you in your daffynition of "terrorist" a while back. Do try to keep up, kid.

Furthermore, Hasan's motivations DO appear to have been Islamofascist in nature and he DOES appear to have couched his demands in terms of veiled threats which he then evidently acted upon. So, UNLIKE either the Anthrax perp or the DC Sniper, a rational case CAN be made that Hasan was more akin to being a terrorist.

Finally, of course, dopey, this is a thread on a political discussion board; and engaging in the discussion is not "butting in" regardless of how much you dislike it, ya silly empty little twit.

 

[Silfy]

Now THAT wasn't so hard, was it? Perino SAID what she did. Ever heard of a Freudian slip?

I think my girlfriend got one of those at Victoria Secret's Black Friday Sale today

Freudian slips come with those built in penis envy enhancers.

So sad.

Sad for her but goood for my penis

 

[Coyote]

.........

 

[Coyote]

Already refuted.

Repeating your self-serving but baseless propaganda does nothing to further your position.

Refuted only if you accept that Hasan was not a terrorist attack, which JenyEliza (to whom I was replying) - seems to consider Hasan's actions a terrorist attack. If you're going to butt in, then at least butt in with the correct information.

Thank you.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled rhetoric

Wrong again, puppy. I arleady refuted you in your daffynition of "terrorist" a while back. Do try to keep up, kid.

Furthermore, Hasan's motivations DO appear to have been Islamofascist in nature and he DOES appear to have couched his demands in terms of veiled threats which he then evidently acted upon. So, UNLIKE either the Anthrax perp or the DC Sniper, a rational case CAN be made that Hasan was more akin to being a terrorist.

Silly boy, try not to contradict yourself. Hasan's "demands" were vague - very vague. "Adverse consequences" can mean many things, particularly to a muslim who's religion forbids him from killing other muslims. Vague, in fact, JUST LIKE the Anthrax killer and ... don't forget....the Beltway Sniper was convicted in one of the courts, on terrorism charges. If rationality were truly part of your argument we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Finally, of course, dopey, this is a thread on a political discussion board; and engaging in the discussion is not "butting in" regardless of how much you dislike it, ya silly empty little twit.

Sweetheart, it IS butting in when you rant about a response made to someone elses words without taking into account what the response was to. Actually, it's not butting in....you are correct. It's retarded.

Carry on

 

[Liability]

Refuted only if you accept that Hasan was not a terrorist attack, which JenyEliza (to whom I was replying) - seems to consider Hasan's actions a terrorist attack. If you're going to butt in, then at least butt in with the correct information.

Thank you.

You can now return to your regularly scheduled rhetoric

Wrong again, puppy. I arleady refuted you in your daffynition of "terrorist" a while back. Do try to keep up, kid.

Furthermore, Hasan's motivations DO appear to have been Islamofascist in nature and he DOES appear to have couched his demands in terms of veiled threats which he then evidently acted upon. So, UNLIKE either the Anthrax perp or the DC Sniper, a rational case CAN be made that Hasan was more akin to being a terrorist.

Silly boy, try not to contradict yourself. Hasan's "demands" were vague - very vague. "Adverse consequences" can mean many things, particularly to a muslim who's religion forbids him from killing other muslims. Vague, in fact, JUST LIKE the Anthrax killer and ... don't forget....the Beltway Sniper was convicted in one of the courts, on terrorism charges. If rationality were truly part of your argument we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Your inability to follow along in a discussion which is already properly qualified reflects poorly either on your reading comprehension or your honesty.

I have not contradicted myself at all. Hasan MADE demands, as it turns out, albeit they were indeed (as I already noted) on the vague side. This is still a dstinguishing characteristic of HIS case from either the Anthrax perp or the D.C. Sniper (unless they made some demands of some kind about which I am unaware). As for the DC Sniper having been convicted of terrorism, that is not quite accurate. Virginia does have an anti-terrorism statute and the jury did convict him for a count of that, but it is NOT a federal terrrorism stattute NOR does it appear that the VA legal definition of terrorism requires the actual use of terror to coerce a government. In VA it looks like the proof of "terrorism" requires ONLY that the Government prove two or more murders were committed by a defendant within a 3 year period.

Finally, of course, dopey, this is a thread on a political discussion board; and engaging in the discussion is not "butting in" regardless of how much you dislike it, ya silly empty little twit.

Sweetheart, it IS butting in when you rant about a response made to someone elses words without taking into account what the response was to. Actually, it's not butting in....you are correct. It's retarded.

Carry on

Oh dopey. I ain't your sweetheart, ya ignorant twit. And of course, your attempt to salvage some small vestige of your dignity is a failure. You either don't grasp what "butting-in" actually means, or we are simply witnessing yet another instance of you being dishonest. Furthermore, responding is not "ranting" and, naturally, I engaged in no rant, as the my earlier post establishes on its face. Your dishonest spin is rejected as -- well -- just you being dishonest again.

And the only thing "retarded" here is your futile effort to squirm out of the words you continue to post and which you then have to (ineffectually) attempt to modify.

Muddle on, kid.

 

[Liability]

CORRECTION TO MY PRIOR POST:

The VA definition of "terrorism" DOES (contrary to my prior understanding) seem to require that the prosecution somehow prove that an accused commit his acts with the intent to "intimidate" the civilian population OR to "influence" by intimidation the conduct of the government.

§ 18.2-46.4. Definitions.

As used in this article unless the context requires otherwise or it is otherwise provided:

"Act of terrorism" means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation. * * * *

I have no idea how the VA prosecutor was able to argue that the DC Sniper's intent was to somehow coerce the government if there were no demands made. It MIGHT be that VA went strictly by the (i) portion of the definition: that Mohammed's and Malvo's actions were intended merely to intimidate the civilian population at large. If so, their definition of "terrorism" is pretty meaningless. ANY acts consisting of a crime spree might fit within such a loose definition.

 

[Douger]

It depends on the definition of not's not is isnot snot

 

[Liability]

I'd like to thank Douger for his valuable contribution.

And, I will, if he ever posts one.

 

[Chris]

Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Now I've heard of revisionist history but REALLY?

I guess Dana has never heard of that whole September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

She's cute, but can she type?

 

[JakeStarkey]

She's a dim watt. Let's move on.

 

[Coyote]

CORRECTION TO MY PRIOR POST:

The VA definition of "terrorism" DOES (contrary to my prior understanding) seem to require that the prosecution somehow prove that an accused commit his acts with the intent to "intimidate" the civilian population OR to "influence" by intimidation the conduct of the government.

§ 18.2-46.4. Definitions.

As used in this article unless the context requires otherwise or it is otherwise provided:

"Act of terrorism" means an act of violence as defined in clause (i) of subdivision A of § 19.2-297.1 committed with the intent to (i) intimidate the civilian population at large; or (ii) influence the conduct or activities of the government of the United States, a state or locality through intimidation. * * * *

I have no idea how the VA prosecutor was able to argue that the DC Sniper's intent was to somehow coerce the government if there were no demands made. It MIGHT be that VA went strictly by the (i) portion of the definition: that Mohammed's and Malvo's actions were intended merely to intimidate the civilian population at large. If so, their definition of "terrorism" is pretty meaningless. ANY acts consisting of a crime spree might fit within such a loose definition.

The problem with your definition of terrorism - which requires demands made on a government - is that it is too restrictive. Most commonly accepted definitions of "terrorism don't include that. I believe it would exclude 9/11 as a terrorist action, would it not - as no specific demands were made to the government were they? Hasan's "demands" are, as you said - vague - to vague to be considered a threat much less an actionable threat. In fact, the only potential of "threat" is in hindsight. The Anthrax killers notes while they did not include a demand did contain a definitive threat in wording. I think what is happening here is that there is a semantic hair-splitting going on in an attempt to make Bush's watch look "clean" and Obama's watch look "dirty".

I would at this point call Hasan, Anthrax man, and the Beltway Sniper terrorist actions because the intent was to intimidate civilian populations. Their demands and rationale may not have been clear but at least for Anthrax and Hasan, it wasn't just a pissed off guy going postal - there was methodical preparation and intent.