FRom bad to worse

[3rdnlng]

Maybe she meant the hot air that she emits?

 

Then again, at her age, that still might be considered a fossil fuel.

 

On another note, you can call it partisan sniping all you want, but Palin and Bachman are !@#$ing retarded.

 

Now, if they were democrats and were for Obamacare and Cap & Trade etc. would they still be !@#$ing retarded?

[IDBillzFan]

On another note, you can call it partisan sniping all you want, but Palin and Bachman are !@#$ing retarded.

Y'know I really don't want to get into a discussion about who's stupid and who's not, but just out of curiosity, how is it you can you be so certain that Palin and Bachman are stupid, and yet you somehow can watch the video of Hank Johnson's belief that Guam could tip over because there are too many people on the island and think "Oh, yeah, I can see where he's using it as a metaphor. Absolutely. Sure. Not a problem."

[yall]

Now, if they were democrats and were for Obamacare and Cap & Trade etc. would they still be !@#$ing retarded?

 

Yes. I don't care if you support a position I don't agree with. You can still be an intelligent person. These two are clearly not.

 

Y'know I really don't want to get into a discussion about who's stupid and who's not, but just out of curiosity, how is it you can you be so certain that Palin and Bachman are stupid, and yet you somehow can watch the video of Hank Johnson's belief that Guam could tip over because there are too many people on the island and think "Oh, yeah, I can see where he's using it as a metaphor. Absolutely. Sure. Not a problem."

 

If you go back and read my post, you'll see that I said I had seen the quote, not watched the video, so without any reference or context it was difficult to determine if it was a metaphor or stupidity. You'll also note that I didn't completely discount either possibility, although I had a hard time believing he was that dumb.

 

I'm certain Bachman and Palin are stupid, as I have a much larger body of their work with which I'm familiar, and therefore am able to draw a conclusion based upon mountains of evidence.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

If you were the President and this country that you were sworn to protect was attacked by 50 airliners flying into all of our biggest buildings by Iceland, who has no nukes, what would you do? BTW, Iceland threatens to continue to do it, knowing that Obama has pledged not to use nukes on them.

 

Our Air Force can devestate a country w/o using a single nuke. And with minimal losses to our rforces.

[IDBillzFan]

I'm certain Bachman and Palin are stupid, as I have a much larger body of their work with which I'm familiar, and therefore am able to draw a conclusion based upon mountains of evidence.

Please share with us the large body of work which shows that Michelle Bachman is stupid.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

And btw -

 

 

As the White House pushes for cuts in the U.S. nuclear arsenal, the Pentagon is developing a weapon to help fill the gap: missiles armed with conventional warheads that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

 

 

Testing to begin next month.

 

 

And the Obama reply to Sara's retort

 

President Obama on Friday brushed off criticism from Sarah Palin that his agreement with Russia to restrict the use of nuclear weapons amounts to a dangerous sign of weakness.

 

"I really have no response," the president said tersely in an interview on ABC's Good Morning America. "Because last I checked, Sarah Palin's not much of an expert on nuclear issues."

[yall]

Please share with us the large body of work which shows that Michelle Bachman is stupid.

 

Gladly:

 

She has encouraged her supporters to fill out as little of the 2010 Census forms as possible, believing that the information could be used to set up FEMA concentration camps.

 

She is "anti-socialism" and yet her family farm has reaped over a quarter million in government subsidies (OK - maybe not dumb, but it sure makes her an !@#$). Sounds like a high priced welfare queen to me.

 

I'm not going to dig all day and put up her numerous quotes that grossly misrepresent the Constitution or how she thinks God is on America's side, I'll let you do that if you are truly interested in learning about her. But trust me they are out there. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative.

[Magox]

Please share with us the large body of work which shows that Michelle Bachman is stupid.

I can just see it, YALL becomes a little disturbed with Palin or Bachman for so and so reason, and his immediate instinct is to do what liberals do best, which is to insult when they have nothing substantive to respond and then quickly types "I'm certain Bachman and Palin are stupid, as I have a much larger body of their work with which I'm familiar, and therefore am able to draw a conclusion based upon mountains of evidence."

 

Then he gets a little glimmer in his eye and feels all warm and fuzzy inside thinking to himself, "Yaaaa, I burned her, that'll show'em"

[3rdnlng]

Gladly:

 

She has encouraged her supporters to fill out as little of the 2010 Census forms as possible, believing that the information could be used to set up FEMA concentration camps.

 

She is "anti-socialism" and yet her family farm has reaped over a quarter million in government subsidies (OK - maybe not dumb, but it sure makes her an !@#$). Sounds like a high priced welfare queen to me.

 

I'm not going to dig all day and put up her numerous quotes that grossly misrepresent the Constitution or how she thinks God is on America's side, I'll let you do that if you are truly interested in learning about her. But trust me they are out there. If you choose to ignore them, that's your prerogative.

 

 

Links?

[yall]

I can just see it, YALL becomes a little disturbed with Palin or Bachman for so and so reason, and his immediate instinct is to do what liberals do best, which is to insult when they have nothing substantive to respond and then quickly types "I'm certain Bachman and Palin are stupid, as I have a much larger body of their work with which I'm familiar, and therefore am able to draw a conclusion based upon mountains of evidence."

 

Then he gets a little glimmer in his eye and feels all warm and fuzzy inside thinking to himself, "Yaaaa, I burned her, that'll show'em"

 

I'm a registered Republican actually. But I see you are one of the folks so blinded by partisan politics, that any critique, no matter how valid, must be coming from the enemy. No wonder my party is in complete shambles.

 

Links?

 

www.google.com

 

Have fun.

[3rdnlng]

Our Air Force can devestate a country w/o using a single nuke. And with minimal losses to our rforces.

 

 

I have repeatedly stated that my problem is with coming out and verbally taking nukes off the table for the vast majority of the world. No sane person wants to see nuclear weapons actually used. Our nukes are a deterrent, and to be used only if there are no other choices.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

I have repeatedly stated that my problem is with coming out and verbally taking nukes off the table for the vast majority of the world. No sane person wants to see nuclear weapons actually used. Our nukes are a deterrent, and to be used only if there are no other choices.

If the US has 15,000 missiles that can level cities across the globe in minutes w/o nuclear fall out, THAT is also a big deterrent.

[3rdnlng]

If the US has 15,000 missiles that can level cities across the globe in minutes w/o nuclear fall out, THAT is also a big deterrent.

 

 

Yes, it is. Why tell some terrorist sponsoring country that we will not use nukes against them even if they attack us and do serious damage? I would rather keep them guessing than have an attack against us. It's called prevention. It's Obama's job and first priority to protect this country. It is his sworn duty. If his new stated policy makes us even 1% more likely to be attacked then he is wrong. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I come out against this policy and what I say gets twisted into me being a proponent of using nuclear weapons. I believe in using them only if our country or a country that we have a mutual defense treaty with is in peril and there is no other option.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Yes, it is. Why tell some terrorist sponsoring country that we will not use nukes against them even if they attack us and do serious damage? I would rather keep them guessing than have an attack against us. It's called prevention. It's Obama's job and first priority to protect this country. It is his sworn duty. If his new stated policy makes us even 1% more likely to be attacked then he is wrong. Why is this so hard for people to understand. I come out against this policy and what I say gets twisted into me being a proponent of using nuclear weapons. I believe in using them only if our country or a country that we have a mutual defense treaty with is in peril and there is no other option.

 

"Capabilities like an adaptive missile defense shield, conventional warheads with worldwide reach and others that we are developing enable us to reduce the role of nuclear weapons," Vice President Biden said in a February speech at the National Defense University. "With these modern capabilities, even with deep nuclear reductions, we will remain undeniably strong."

 

Take the time to read the following .. Deterrence can be achieved w/o nukes!

 

Washington Post Link

[Magox]

I'm a registered Republican actually. But I see you are one of the folks so blinded by partisan politics, that any critique, no matter how valid, must be coming from the enemy. No wonder my party is in complete shambles.

Critique is one thing, but a standard talking point criticism is another. And where's the validity you claim? Your statement was nothing other than the typical talking point.

[yall]

Critique is one thing, but a standard talking point criticism is another. And where's the validity you claim? Your statement was nothing other than the typical talking point.

 

So being concerned about the Census being used to round us up for FEMA concentration camps isn't proof enough?

 

Obviously either of them could try to fix a plugged in toaster with a butter knife and that wouldn't be enough to sway you as to their lack of intellect, so I'm not going to bother trying myself.

[3rdnlng]

So being concerned about the Census being used to round us up for FEMA concentration camps isn't proof enough?

 

Obviously either of them could try to fix a plugged in toaster with a butter knife and that wouldn't be enough to sway you as to their lack of intellect, so I'm not going to bother trying myself.

 

The onus is on you to prove your point, not flippantly give out Google's address. You are well on your way to obtaining your green belt in Connerism.

[yall]

The onus is on you to prove your point, not flippantly give out Google's address. You are well on your way to obtaing your green belt in Connerism.

 

Ha!

 

I don't have to prove squat to anyone on this forum, especially those who think the current changes to our nuclear policy represent some threat to our national security.

 

You can continue to go through life thinking Palin and Bachman are not idiots. That doesn't really matter to me - unless you vote in Republican primaries!

[3rdnlng]

Ha!

 

I don't have to prove squat to anyone on this forum, especially those who think the current changes to our nuclear policy represent some threat to our national security.

 

You can continue to go through life thinking Palin and Bachman are not idiots. That doesn't really matter to me - unless you vote in Republican primaries!

 

Then there isn't much of a reason to discuss anything with you.

[Magox]

So being concerned about the Census being used to round us up for FEMA concentration camps isn't proof enough?

That wouldn't demonstrate stupidity, it would illustrate extreme partisan rhetoric. Big difference, and if you actually believe that this what she really believes, then more than anything it would show your stupidity.