Reply #88

In the discussion thread: "Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all]

Response to Zalatix (Reply #83)

Thu Jan 12, 2012, 12:44 PM

JackRiddler (19,471 posts)

88. You know, when you put it in ALLCAPS like that, it feels more overwhelming!

Perhaps I should try this drink you speak of, traveler.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

112 replies	Author	Time	Post
"Osama bin Laden will never walk on this earth again" is the rhetoric we want to represent us? [View all]	Bonobo	Jan 2012	OP
why do you get offended by such things ? it's about winning the election	JI7	Jan 2012	#1
"It's about winning the election"	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#2
of course there is a lot we can lose like Roe v Wade,all the accomplishments	JI7	Jan 2012	#4
It has been said in many ways by many people...	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#9
Not at this time. Please try back in 2016.	FarLeftFist	Jan 2012	#6
we are murderers and assassins and bullies and thieves	SixthSense	Jan 2012	#3
Still upset we couldn't bring a violent criminal to trial? nt	Confusious	Jan 2012	#5
Supposedly he was the leader of a terrorist network.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#59
What makes you think he could	Confusious	Jan 2012	#109
Yes. It's the reason the United States of America was created.	rug	Jan 2012	#7
I care about winning, not what makes me feel good inside	bluestateguy	Jan 2012	#8
The 2 principal war criminals won't have to come to trial and I'm very happy they are out of the way	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#10
Good analogy. (nt)	pinto	Jan 2012	#15
Here's a good article...	Drunken Irishman	Jan 2012	#19
Er. I was quoting Harry Truman on the deaths of Hitler and Mussolini.	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#20
Yes, I know...	Drunken Irishman	Jan 2012	#38
This message was self-deleted by its author	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#28
Why don't you read my entire post next time instead of just the title?	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#32
This message was self-deleted by its author	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#33
I said Truman's statement was an example of a Democrat using the same kind of rhetoric.	phleshdef	Jan 2012	#35
As you prefer.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#40
Civilized societies do trials, summary executions is what savages do.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#62
I thought you were talking about Bush and Cheney at first.	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#97
I'm sorry, we have not "become them."	downwardly_mobile	Jan 2012	#11
Did Libya ever invade a nation on the other side of the world...	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#30
No, but...	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#42
The case against Libya for the Lockerbie bombing is dubious.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#48
Poor old Gaddafi.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#50
Who cares what the truth is, right?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#51
The truth is, Libya bombed Pan Am 103 the hell out of the sky.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#52
The Scottish review board does not share your certainty.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#56
The circuit board is impeached by one person. Other evidence shows that Libya had possession	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#60
False. The circuit board is impeached by at least two persons.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#69
Edwin Bollier? The guy who also claimed Gaddafi offered him $200M to get Megrahi free?	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#72
My "narrative" is not "USA-bad-Libya-good."	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#75
The fuck it ain't.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#76
Scotland is in the UK. Scotland is why it's called the UK.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#78
So your rationale for invading Libya is PanAm/Lockerbie?	DisgustipatedinCA	Jan 2012	#81
Is that what I said? I don't think I said that.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#86
Watch this trick:	DisgustipatedinCA	Jan 2012	#92
No worries.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#102
That's all you got out of that excellent summary of	sabrina 1	Jan 2012	#99
#94. New facts have come to light. n/t	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#103
poor old bolo. proven wrong and resorting to strawmen..	frylock	Jan 2012	#106
Really? I've been proven wrong? I'm not noticing a lot of responses to my #94.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#107
JackRiddler I used to think Megrahi did bomb the plane, but your logic and facts are solid.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#64
American scales of justice	whatchamacallit	Jan 2012	#93
Poor old Gaddafi.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#98
Bravo and thank you. Needs to be an OP.	inna	Jan 2012	#49
Thank you inna.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#54
" Libya was framed for the Lockerbie bombing is MSM sourced" Gross overstatement	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#61
See Post #48. Please show the factual errors in that post.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#65
One piece of evidence is said to be faked by one person. That's true.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#67
Who in the world releases someone who kills 300 people for "Compassion" reasons? Really?	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#68
Overwhelming evidence. None of it has any kind of rational dispute.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#71
And despite all this overwhelming evidence, a re-trial was planned for him. How do you explain that?	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#82
Because the defense wasn't told about the CIA offer to Gauci. A technicality.	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#84
Gotcha. So re-trials are routine for cases settled with overwhelming evidence	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#85
Yes. Take for example the incredibly guilty Ted Stevens...	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#87
Apples & Oranges. Ted Stevens was accused of political corruption, not terrorism/mass murder.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#90
Check out #94 for a response. But also	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#96
This is a good point (the release) but even more important...	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#80
Don't you know? He had OVERWHELMING evidence against him. Yet a re-trial was approved.	Zalatix	Jan 2012	#83
You know, when you put it in ALLCAPS like that, it feels more overwhelming!	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#88
Here's another good point - the actual summary of referral from the Scottish review board	Bolo Boffin	Jan 2012	#94
I agree on all counts.	SammyWinstonJack	Jan 2012	#63
US or international politics of it all aside, bin Laden's demise was bluntly necessary, imo.	pinto	Jan 2012	#12
Bluntly necessary? To shoot rather than capture the best source of intelligence?	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#55
I can't help but wonder	RZM	Jan 2012	#89
This is not a contradiction.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#95
'If they believed what they said' is a really big 'if'	RZM	Jan 2012	#101
I understand your rationale politically.	JackRiddler	Jan 2012	#110
But I'm talking about orders here	RZM	Jan 2012	#111
Nope. He's dead and rotting of his own choice. I have no qualms about it	NYC Liberal	Jan 2012	#13
If osama truly was the criminal mastermind behind deaths of thousands and thousands of innocents	Muskypundit	Jan 2012	#14
I'm not happy about that kind of rhetoric.	RevStPatrick	Jan 2012	#16
That what sells. Want to get elected? That's what you talk about?	joshcryer	Jan 2012	#17
This rhetoric has been representing Democrats since 9/11	frazzled	Jan 2012	#18
Personally, I'm glad that particular shithead is dead. If that makes me a bad man, I'm a bad man.	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#21
I didn't mean to confront THAT issue again. I am trying to get people to see...	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#23
This is the first I've heard of this particular statement by the President	Warren DeMontague	Jan 2012	#25
I understand what you're saying,	NashvilleLefty	Jan 2012	#22
"if you use the time to seriously consider why you got your cheek slapped"	Bonobo	Jan 2012	#24
I can live with it.	aikoaiko	Jan 2012	#26
I considered the capture or killing of Bin Laden as a worthy goal of our government.	MilesColtrane	Jan 2012	#27
...	Summer Hathaway	Jan 2012	#29
"we can't "become them" etc.	greyl	Jan 2012	#36
It deserves to be in the Top Ten of rhetoric. nt	greyl	Jan 2012	#31
Better:	ProSense	Jan 2012	#34
People like you are	LiberalAndProud	Jan 2012	#37
well that and all those dead women and kids killed by drones & our military nt	msongs	Jan 2012	#39
Right up there with Americans screaming, USA! USA!, teeth clenched and veins	truth2power	Jan 2012	#41
9/11 changed everything..	DCBob	Jan 2012	#43
killing that bastard wasn't about defining Democrats	bigtree	Jan 2012	#44
Sure. It's an awesome talking point.	jefferson_dem	Jan 2012	#45
Don't like that phrase, but winning the war against terrorism sounds pretty good...	JCMach1	Jan 2012	#46
It is the truth	quaker bill	Jan 2012	#47
Removing the advantage (R)s have in security	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#53
Just run Gingrich as a (D)--if we are EXACTLY like them, they won't be able to criticize us!	Romulox	Jan 2012	#57
They wouldn't be able to criticize ?!?!?	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#100
Not if Gingrich (D) is the nominee, as I suggested earlier. How could they criticize ANYTHING,	Romulox	Jan 2012	#104
Gingrich as a (D) is right up there with Sanders as an (R)	Motown_Johnny	Jan 2012	#105
Yep! He was directly responsible for ordering the deaths of thousands of people	Liberal_Stalwart71	Jan 2012	#58
He should be dead	Welcome_hubby	Oct 2012	#112
First off, their is no such thing as a soul, but to go ahead and continue your thought process...	snooper2	Jan 2012	#66
Yes.	JoePhilly	Jan 2012	#70
Yes. It shuts the other side up quite well. nt	msanthrope	Jan 2012	#73
Sure, I have no problem with it. He was a piece of shit who killed a lot of innocent people.	WI_DEM	Jan 2012	#74
Please to trim your ideals	gratuitous	Jan 2012	#77
I'm not thrilled by that type of rhetoric. It does appeal to some.	Solly Mack	Jan 2012	#79
No,	Raffi Ella	Jan 2012	#91
Fine by me.	WilliamPitt	Jan 2012	#108

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.