Jump to content

Idiot super-liberal Matthews officially became certifiable


1billsfan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not illegal to call al Qaeda...but there 900 number is expensive, at $10 for the first minute and $1.95 for each additional minute. It's cheaper and easier to just catch them on AOL IM (screen name "OSAMAMAN").

 

 

 

Really..."call up al Qaeda". No, Chris, that's not illegal, it's too !@#$ing retarded to be illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ***** and giggles last night, I was watching some MSNBC, and I noticed that Maddow and Matthews are both suggesting that this is some sort of Right Wing Fear Mongering that is going on right now, and they are downplaying the possibility of there being a connection to terrorism.

 

This sort of reminds me of Conner, who suggested a couple days ago that Hasan, being a Muslim, in Texas, who was harrassed was a plausible explanation of why this had happened, which is the exact same line of thinking as these twits on MSNBC.

 

Disgusting :worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For ***** and giggles last night, I was watching some MSNBC, and I noticed that Maddow and Matthews are both suggesting that this is some sort of Right Wing Fear Mongering that is going on right now, and they are downplaying the possibility of there being a connection to terrorism.

 

This sort of reminds me of Conner, who suggested a couple days ago that Hasan, being a Muslim, in Texas, who was harrassed was a plausible explanation of why this had happened, which is the exact same line of thinking as these twits on MSNBC.

 

Disgusting :worthy:

 

Heeeey, we should not not rush to judgement here. This poor guy was under a lot of stress and those wars were wrong to begin with. It's not like he was a racist cop in which we certainly don't need all the facts to make a judgement on.

 

We are in the ACLU approved Obamaland were the CIA and cops are evil doers, and the first act of terrorism in the United States since 911 is not "terrorism" but just a poor guy who's misunderstood and needed a hug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heeeey, we should not not rush to judgement here. This poor guy was under a lot of stress and those wars were wrong to begin with. It's not like he was a racist cop in which we certainly don't need all the facts to make a judgement on.

 

We are in the ACLU approved Obamaland were the CIA and cops are evil doers, and the first act of terrorism in the United States since 911 is not "terrorism" but just a poor guy who's misunderstood and needed a hug.

 

No, by all means let's automatically condemn this as a political act simply because he's Muslim and talked to other, anti-American Muslims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your point?

 

 

Yeah, soon to be 2010. What does that have to do with passing judgment on terrorists?

 

To answer both of your questions:

 

The point is you can't look back to make your arguement.

 

-AND- we don't have a Jingoistic President (with us or against us) and we didn't have THOUSANDS KILLED and National Icons (three in total if you count the towers as two) destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer both of your questions:

 

 

 

-AND- we don't have a Jingoistic President (with us or against us) and we didn't have THOUSANDS KILLED and National Icons (three in total if you count the towers as two) destroyed.

Right, by this philosophy, there is little to learn from the past. Got it :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer both of your questions:

 

 

 

-AND- we don't have a Jingoistic President (with us or against us) and we didn't have THOUSANDS KILLED and National Icons (three in total if you count the towers as two) destroyed.

 

I see so it all hedges on the amount of damage and the numbers killed not the killer(s) motivation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer both of your questions:

 

 

 

-AND- we don't have a Jingoistic President (with us or against us) and we didn't have THOUSANDS KILLED and National Icons (three in total if you count the towers as two) destroyed.

 

Oh. You went with Jingoistic on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see so it all hedges on the amount of damage and the numbers killed not the killer(s) motivation.

 

That's not even remotely what I was suggesting, at all.

 

Right, by this philosophy, there is little to learn from the past. Got it :thumbsup:

 

That's not what I was suggesting either, but by putting it this way, I suggested it more so than you're giving me credit for! I'd rather we not turn this event in to a round-em-up Muslim hunt like we did after 9/11. I'm sure the millions of Muslim Americans are feeling the same way, face in hands thinking, "not this again."

 

Oh. You went with Jingoistic on that one.

 

Yes. Did you have a question or comment on that, or were you just observing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what I was suggesting either, but by putting it this way, I suggested it more so than you're giving me credit for! I'd rather we not turn this event in to a round-em-up Muslim hunt like we did after 9/11. I'm sure the millions of Muslim Americans are feeling the same way, face in hands thinking, "not this again."

 

I'm pissed off with people (including the US Army) who are putting the fear of muslim backlash ahead of trying to figure out why this guy was not drummed out of the service and how many more like him are there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...