Dana Summers for April 18, 2009

No. You go ahead and work. Oh, by the way, did you know we about ten thousand of those ourselves?

Their little bombs are of no real threat to us, I suspect. What’s more dangerous is probably already out there - the makings of dirty bombs.

The best! Says it all…the talking bobble-head doesn’t know what he is doing!

You’re right, Norml. Instead, he should alienate the rest of the world, rid us of those whining allies, give our enemies’ recruiting effort a boost beyond their wildest dreams, and perhaps even launch an unnecessary and unprovoked attack on another country.

After all, we’re seen that type of foreign policy just works GREAT!

Well….we haven’t been attacked since then, Anthony.

The boogiemen will get us!

cdward- you are right. The real danger is that they sell the technology and material to terriorist organizations.

Tell that to our dead soldiers in Iraq, Ann.

Oh, wait…you can’t.

We also haven’t been hit by a large meteorite, and there’s just as much cause-and-effect evidence for that, too.

And some bankruptcy headed stockbrokers own a half-million pounds of yellow cake uranium!!! Let’s bomb Wall Street! Wait, they did it to themselves.

Tony;

In fact, we have more meteor impact zones than nuke impact zones;

Nuke impact; Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

Meteor impact; Manicouagan, Shiva, Nouveau-Quebec, Meteor crater, tunguska (maybe), Xixchulub (the one in the Yucatan peninsula, have ni idea how to spell it)… and those are just the famous ones.

LOL

I know, I know, simplistic but funny.

Actually, CF, we were talking about events of the current decade.

Ann seemed to be making the ludicrous claim that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 because of the Bush policy to alienate the rest of the world, rid us of those whining allies, give our enemies’ recruiting effort a boost beyond their wildest dreams, and launch an unnecessary and unprovoked attack on another country.

tracht47 and the rest of you tyrant sympathizers: you’d rather have people who beat up women for showing their ankles, stone gay people, generally suppress religious differences, and deny the Holocaust with a nuclear bomb? He’s going to cause the second one, and David Duke, Ahmadinejad’s buddy, will love that, too.

Sandor- thank you for the kind words. What’s your solution? Should we bomb Iran and North Korea? Have two more land wars? Remember, it’s a lot easier to start a war than to stop one.

Sandor; Would you rather have a crack addict cured or on the stuff?

Cured, of course. But try to cure somebody who doesn’t want to and you’ll just waste time and energy.

Afghanistan is better off without talibans, of course, but who are we to impose them a regime (even more civilized) that they don’t want? Not only is it against the very idea of democracy (government by them, not us, according to their values, not ours), but it is doomed to fail making us lose valuable time, energy and ressources in the process.

If Matthew Shepard were still alive, I wonder what he’d think of Sandor’s concerns about “stoning gay people” in Iraq?

“people who beat up women for showing their ankles, stone gay people, generally suppress religious differences, and deny the Holocaust”

Republicans?

stewiez: “Land of Hopenchange” is your fantasy. It doesn’t have anything to do with real life.

I’ve heard better fictional places than Hopenchange.

Daniel - BO promised us Hope & Change. Stew is merely pointing out what was promised & what BO’s actions have been so far. You said it - “it doesn’t have anything to do with real life”. Actually, it’s an Obama fantasy.

Stew - you left out Chavez - BO’s latest buddy.

Back in the real world, Obama is bringing about both hope and change. And the promises he made during the campaign, he’s doing.

He promised to talk with world leaders. He’s doing so. What’s the problem?

The problem is that after eight years of Bush, his sheep can’t grasp that we now have a president capable of putting together coherent sentences, and thinking on his feet.

Let’s face it: If his handlers had allowed Bush to have spontaneous unscripted conversations with these leaders, it would have been a disaster. “Looking into Putin’s soul” and completely misreading it would have only been the tip of the iceberg.