Honestly, I was giving her a break on this before I saw that the words were what have been her talking points since forever.Kmarion wrote:
For some reason people are saying it's not bad because it was only a few words. How does that help her case exactly? Not being able to remember only five words is better? That is some funny shit right there.
I can give her a little slack there.Doctor Strangelove wrote:
Honestly, I was giving her a break on this before I saw that the words were what have been her talking points since forever.Kmarion wrote:
For some reason people are saying it's not bad because it was only a few words. How does that help her case exactly? Not being able to remember only five words is better? That is some funny shit right there.
That's really pathetic.
Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-02-12 16:12:38)
In front of what size audience? She was on national television... Ever spoke in front of millions of people before? Did she recite those words verbatim? Regan used cue cards. O set up teleprompters in a f'n elementary classroom.. Really?m3thod wrote:
i dont doubt it. But really if you're going poke fun at someone for use a telepromter dont scribble notes on your hand and while we're raggin on her, is it so hard to remember 4 words?!DBBrinson1 wrote:
Reading a speech is different than using a cue word. We all know how stupid the O sounds when he goes off script.m3thod wrote:
....while mocking O for using a teleprompter....
the bitch is thicker than 2 short planks.
I dislike her for her religious views. However look at the other world leaders... She'd be better than most. And that is sad...Kmarion wrote:
Which is why she shouldn't be anywhere near a world stage.
Better than Mugabe and the various other dictators of the world.... but not better than any First World leader I can think of.DBBrinson1 wrote:
I dislike her for her religious views. However look at the other world leaders... She'd be better than most. And that is sad...Kmarion wrote:
Which is why she shouldn't be anywhere near a world stage.
I agree with the general idea of your post, but you seem to be doing exactly what you consider moronic... the only difference is that you're doing it to Clinton instead of Bush.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
The point of my post was to point out that no matter who is president, we are not going to stop everything, large or small, even with a lot of intelligence. As far as blaming Rice for dropping the ball....did you see the report? I dont believe anyone here in this forum in privy to the reports that were circulating at that time. From what I understand, it was a general threat with no real names or targets associated to the threat.
Even now, I am sure there are threats of this or that happening...but which ones do they pursue, which ones do they take MOST seriously. If anyone is that smart, then we would never have attacks. As far as threats like the one Rice had about planes being used, that is a very old tactic that has been discussed for many years, even as early as the 1970's. It is not a new type of threat and didn't just appear out of nowhere when Bush became president. I wonder where all the warnings about all the stuff happening before Bush became president were. Someone other than Rice didn't drop the ball?????? It was a series of missed intel that wasnt linked together and that happens and will always happen. But to blame Bush is so ignorant on so many levels.
Also, I believe it says a lot about the security we had during the Bush years that we were not SUCCESSFULLY attacked. Don't you think? I think it is pretty telling that about 8 major attacks happened under Clinton and 1 major one under Bush during the same time spans of presidency. Now, in one year under Obama, there have been one major attack and one failed attack. Failed, not because we stopped it, because the device failed itself.
I still stand by my post, to come into this thread and bring up one major attack under the Bush watch and some how connect everything to that, regardless of the history before Bush or after Bush is absolutely moronic. That is what is wrong with our country, always looking to attack the other side, picking and choosing and changing actual history and forgetting that nothing will get done the way this country is run, regardless of Democrats or Republicans. It is sad to see the state of our government but I will not blame one man for everything, that is nonsense.
I'll be sure to let every imprisoned serial killer know that they now have someone to blame for their predicament....Doctor Strangelove wrote:
She is the full embodiment of everything that is wrong with the American people
Which is why Wall Street facepalms when Obama opens his mouth.Kmarion wrote:
Presidents generally have very little to do with the economy.
Actually, part of the point I was trying to make is that you can not look at specific people or blame on person when there is plenty of blame to go around. Our leadership is a mess no matter who runs it and no leadership will ever be able to stop terrorism completely. What I get tired of is certain people who insist on rambling on and on about one specific person, laying all blame on one person and forgetting the people around them (Democrat and Republican alike) and then trying to use a significant event to support that idea.Turquoise wrote:
I agree with the general idea of your post, but you seem to be doing exactly what you consider moronic... the only difference is that you're doing it to Clinton instead of Bush.DeathBecomesYu wrote:
What I said.
I blamed Rice because she had more direct responsibilities with respect to security memos.
Still, if we're comparing attacks under administrations, 9/11 does dwarf all attacks under Clinton.