Skip to comments.
Unintended Consequences 5 Days Later: The Political Gambit Liberals LOST!
Nearly Every News Source and Liberal Leader in the Nation
Posted on 05/21/2002 2:56:55 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
To: Howlin
What the heck does "The Arab Street" mean? I'm totally clueless about that. Picture a bunch of Arab "yoots" hanging out on a street corner making trouble.
We better not p*ss them off by defending ourselves.
41
posted on
05/22/2002 12:14:26 AM PDT
by
Salman
To: Howlin
What the heck does "The Arab Street" mean? I'm totally clueless about that.
It means a bunch of inbred, seventh-century, turd-world, savage cretins in filthy nightshirts who hate us with a burning passion because they are insanely jealous of our unparalleled successes in this world. --Kind of like the French, but worse.
To: Shermy
It is going to be oil and enron and dick cheney, that is the rats plan of attack. It will not work but they will try it. They are rats!
43
posted on
05/22/2002 12:48:40 AM PDT
by
TLBSHOW
To: Howlin
And next week we'll be hearing them WHINE about all the alerts! Count on it!Absolutely! We are increasing anxiety among Americans! We are abusing our security forces! We can't say where or when the next attack will occur! Whine! Whine! Whine!
44
posted on
05/22/2002 4:47:45 AM PDT
by
maica
To: sharkdiver
Uniformed bump.
45
posted on
05/22/2002 5:08:32 AM PDT
by
gcraig
To: Recovering_Democrat
I believe, though, the current flurry of "terrorism is inevitable" warnings are more a reaction to the politicizing of the war by liberals than a real new threat. How about this? In a brilliant countermove Bush et al have seized the opportunity to 1: report the warnings and 2: heighten our anxiety level so that 3: we are all for increased defense spending, securing our borders and most front-burner 4:taking care of Iraq. Again, I say brilliant. Checkmate. We do not have amateurs running around the White House now. These folks know what they are doing.
46
posted on
05/22/2002 5:16:14 AM PDT
by
ncpastor
To: Recovering_Democrat
Maybe Bush's positives went up slightly, but I think the real story would be a drastic rise in the Dems' negatives. I would love to see the polling on that.
To: Billthedrill
Yes, I heard those seminar callers on C-SPAN. I wonder who gave the go-ahead for that. Terry McAwful presumably approved the plan, but I don't think he would have done something like this without instructions from one or both of the Clintons.
To: Thundergod
But is that a new expression, or have I totally missed that. I started hearing it recently and was totally clueless about what it meant. Are there other "streets" I don't know about? :-)
49
posted on
05/22/2002 8:37:36 AM PDT
by
Howlin
To: Recovering_Democrat;all
As long as the media (Rather, etc.) are allowed to get away with such liberal bias , the Democrats are protected. Does anyone know the laws concerning corporations meeting in secret (i.e. the Big Oil, etc. were brought before Rep. Barr on charges of collusion-why not the newscorps)? And if the news media actually out-an-out lie, can't they have their licenses pulled? They've done both things.
50
posted on
05/22/2002 8:54:43 AM PDT
by
techcor
To: techcor
"And if the news media actually out-an-out lie, can't they have their licenses pulled?" The second that option was even discussed by someone in the Bush Administration the calls of Facisim would ring out all around liberall LaLa-land(California, New York, Chicago, and most of the institutions of Higher Learning!)
To: JmyBryan
Bush did not get confirmation on his FBI director until AUGUST! This needs restating. The lameness of the CIA and FBI are direct results of the downsizing and poor choice leadership selections of the Clinton Administration. Hillary above all should have forseen this obvious conclusion on the part of the dumbed down masses.
To: Recovering_Democrat
Rush is talking about this now. Said the Dems have done a 180.
To: nopardons
Martial Law.
To: Mad Dawgg
Ah, but if we could just get them under oath for questioning it would go like this:
"Did you or anyone in your organization ever meet in secret to suppress stories on any of the following:
1. Monica Lewinsky testifying that Bill Clinton told her a spy was working out of the White House.
2. The Vince Foster Suicide or any related materials.
Then add a few more episodes that seem to be collusion. (BTW, the answer is number 2. They met sometime in April of 96 (pretty sure it was April 8).
Then do the same thing with several stories ending with their reports on his testimony under oath about the receiving of a million dollar "donation". Make sure they swear they are telling the truth, then prove them to be liars. Once their integrity is totally shot in front of the American people, their influence should drop to nothing.
55
posted on
05/22/2002 9:33:19 AM PDT
by
techcor
To: justshutupandtakeit
Thank you . : - )
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-56 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson