Isn't a troll someone who's just looking to rile people up? From what I see here they are not encouraging trolling in the traditional sense. Honestly Gil, if you didn't work for lnp, I'd consider you a troll. You use troll tactics every day in your blogs and column.

Huh-uh. Gil's stuff is more like attaboy, or you tell 'em, or yes!
It's only troll-like when viewed from the flip. There's a huge pile
of us solidly on his side. Solid. Describing us as hate-filled,
misses the point. We're steamed, mad as hell, and riled up....
Now and then, until we put our mild-mannered face back on.

Maybe he can advise them to type in all caps, too. You know, to better get their point across.

Oh no, not the dreaded CAPS LOCK OF DEATH posts.

Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.

Huh-uh. Gil's stuff is more like attaboy, or you tell 'em, or yes!
It's only troll-like when viewed from the flip. There's a huge pile
of us solidly on his side. Solid. Describing us as hate-filled,
misses the point. We're steamed, mad as hell, and riled up....
Now and then, until we put our mild-mannered face back on.

McCain hasn't changed.

Sorry it is hate. God forbid a Republican make use of the internet ina way that might create awareness of his positions. No way man, that's the left's domain!

LOL McCain hasn't changed? Where you been, he's flip-flopped so many times the past few months you have no idea where he really stands on any of the issues. I believe he flipped his position on off-shore drilling in a matter of 7 days. So tell me again he hasn't changed?

Thats because the Repubs still haven't figured out what the internets and the Googles are really used for. I mean its not our fault your party is a bunch of morons that have no idea about technology that is used by probably 75% of all americans, either at work or at home.

He changed his position on off-shore drilling? Did something happen that I'm not aware of? Did the price of a barrel of oil double in the last month?



Grow up.

Sorry it is hate. God forbid a Republican make use of the internet in a way that might create awareness of his positions. No way man, that's the left's domain!

How Keith Olbermann can you get?

I hate that the Government provides information on "intelligent design" at the Grand Canyon.

OK, you got me. I hate what the Republicans have done to our country, our constitution, the justice department, our budget, pretty much everything they have touched. I hate that the Government provides information on "intelligent design" at the Grand Canyon. I could go on and on, just reinforcing your perceptions. And Republican positions? Most are suitable for derision. The Bush administration has made a mockery of constitutional government. Oh please, may they all get tossed onto the dustbin of history this fall.

I'm grateful that the government has kept us safe from another terrorist attack. But I'm sure that you're right, you have much to be angry about.

Oh so they've kept us safe from another terrorist attack, while at the same time taking the steps to create thousands of more terrorists? So because of that, all else is forgiven? Funny you and all your Repub buddies still found stuff to complain about Clinton, while enjoying the most prosperous time in our history. Well the only thing you guys had was a BJ to complain about but, I digress. Funny when the shoes on the other foot with you all become excuse making machines. So becasue people complain about a administration that lied to us on an almost constant basis, you think we should just forgive them because we haven't been attacked again?? Your not that short sighted are ya Pericles?

hmmm. Ok.

I'm going for a swim. Enjoy your weekend.

You mean you hate the fact that private citizens are able to discuss intelligent design, privately, on private raft trips through the Grand Canyon?


I'm grateful that the government has kept us safe from another terrorist attack. But I'm sure that you're right, you have much to be angry about.

If you don’t know what ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is all about, you better bone up. This left-wing group takes in 40 percent of its revenues from American taxpayers — you and me — and has leveraged nearly four decades of government subsidies to fund affiliates that promote the welfare state and undermine capitalism and self-reliance, some of which have been implicated in perpetuating illegal immigration and encouraging voter fraud. A new whistleblower report from the Consumer Rights League documents how Chicago-based ACORN has commingled public tax dollars with political projects.

Who in Washington will fight to ensure that your money isn’t being spent on these radical activities?

Don’t bother asking Barack Obama. He cut his ideological teeth working with ACORN as a “community organizer” and legal representative. Naturally, ACORN’s political action committee has warmly endorsed his presidential candidacy. According to ACORN, Obama trained its Chicago members in leadership seminars; in turn, ACORN volunteers worked on his campaigns. Obama also sat on the boards of the Woods Fund and Joyce Foundation, both of which poured money into ACORN’s coffers. ACORN head Maude Hurd gushes that Obama is the candidate who “best understands and can affect change on the issues ACORN cares about” — like ensuring their massive pipeline to your hard-earned money.

He changed his position on off-shore drilling? Did something happen that I'm not aware of? Did the price of a barrel of oil double in the last month?

Pericles, are you reading the newspaper?!?! I've got something for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Yes, but it's unfortunate the government didn't keep us safe from the first attack, even though they knew full well one was coming. W. chose to ignore the warnings and instead go summering on his ranch, riding bike, clearing brush, etc., but somehow he's gotten a reputation for keeping us safe. Just because another attack hasn't yet occurred doesn't necessarily mean the government's policies are working.

Thats typical to say Bush knew an attack was taking place on sept 11, 2001 and did nothing to stop it. By that reasoning we should be able to say that Clinton knew Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack but did not apprehend him when he had the opportunity thereby allowing 9/11 to happen....shrugs...

funny thing about those pesky facts...can't hide from them.

You will get 4 more years of the same with Obama or McCain. The choice has already been made for you. The rest is just dressing to make you feel good.

I have found, though, that when the Democrats loot my pockets, they at least leave me with some spare change, whereas Republicans leave me with nothing and send me a bill for the looting.

OK, since you're ascribing to me statements I didn't make, let me clarify: I didn't say Bush knew an attack was coming precisely on September 11, 2001, only that the government knew an attack was imminent (August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"). Since the briefing occurred after Clinton left office, how could he (Clinton) possibly have known about an impending attack? It's a matter of record that Bush took no action to attempt to thwart an attack. W's supporters can't defend his incompetence in this matter, so they fall back on the old cliche: "Bill Clinton did it."

You're right about one thing, however: "funny thing about those pesky facts...can't hide from them."


In some ways I agree with you. Noam Chomsky suggested that Democrats and Republicans are simply two factions of one party, the Business Party. I have found, though, that when the Democrats loot my pockets, they at least leave me with some spare change, whereas Republicans leave me with nothing and send me a bill for the looting.

I have found, though, that when the Democrats loot my pockets, they at least leave me with some spare change, whereas Republicans leave me with nothing and send me a bill for the looting.

By that reasoning we should be able to say that Clinton knew Osama Bin Laden was planning an attack but did not apprehend him when he had the opportunity thereby allowing 9/11 to happen....shrugs...

funny thing about those pesky facts...can't hide from them.

I repeat and I'll say it slower so your dimwitted liberal mind can comprehend...Clinton clearly left Bush with documents saying Bin laden was a threat and planning an attack...once again, using YOUR logic, he did nothing to capture Bin Laden....here endeth the lesson.

then by your reasoning reagan should have taken care of the iranians when they bombed our embassy in beruit and bombed our marine barracks in beruit killing more than 250 troops. that would have nipped it in the bud.
instead he turned tail and ran.

So, basically the McCain camp is paying for people to support them.
In regard to the "Where was Bill Clinton?" comments, it's interesting and amusing that when Bushies don't have a leg to stand on in trying to defend W's incompetence, they attack Bill Clinton instead.

GWB was in office for 9 mo. when 9/11 happened. Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden on a platter and TURNED IT DOWN. I despise them both, but at least lay blame where it is due.

9 months wasn't enough time? Before 9/11 it was a differant world as far as how people looked at that sort of thing. Clinton caught all kinds of hell from Repubs for Yugoslavia. He wasn't just going to start an all out war with someone that up till that point, didn't really know what he was capable of. He was tracking Bin Laden, but then when he left office GW just decided that wasn't a priority. Clinton bombed the training camps on at least 2 occasions. GW didn't do anything. He wasn't just going to start an all out war with someone that up till that point, didn't really know what he was capable of.

GWB was in office for 9 mo. when 9/11 happened. Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden on a platter and TURNED IT DOWN. I despise them both, but at least lay blame where it is due.

As for PAYING for people to support them, Obama is BUYING the votes of non-working welfare folks by promising to tax the rich into poverty so he can redistribute wealth. Do I think the top 1% pay their fair share? NO! But Obama's tax plans will drive MORE investment and MORE business OFF-SHORE. But that's the only way he can be elected -- buying votes from everyone who wants the government to support them.

He was tracking Bin Laden??? He was OFFERED Bin Laden! He ran and hid, and didn't know how to handle it, so he said NO. We paid dearly for that.

Clinton had embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He surely knew what BinLaden was capable of. But just like Obama who thinks he can TALK Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and N.Korea OUT of being terrorists, all Clinton did was talk. He set the stage.

He was tracking Bin Laden??? He was OFFERED Bin Laden! He ran and hid, and didn't know how to handle it, so he said NO. We paid dearly for that.

Clinton had embassy bombings and the USS Cole. He surely knew what BinLaden was capable of. But just like Obama who thinks he can TALK Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, and N.Korea OUT of being terrorists, all Clinton did was talk. He set the stage.

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0144,gould,29537,1.html

again, why is he still free? Oh yeah, we walked away from him to invade iraq for some reason. Greatest military in the history of the world and they can't get 1 man? Give me a break, they don't want him captured.

By "they" you mean the democrats and republicans?? Because both had the opportunity to get OBL and chose not to...which leaves "joe dirt" opining on these forums...yes both Clinton and Bush should have got him, neither did....move on.

in 1996 bin laden couldn't be linked to any american deaths, just russian death, russians he killed at our behest. .

on what pretext was osama bin laden to be brought to the united states for arrest and trial?
some of you seem to forget that we had a constitution back in 1996 , we didn't just round people up and put them in prison camp without charges.
the good old days sure seem a lot gooder nowadays.LOL


someone please tell me what clinton should have done since it's all his fault.

By "they" you mean the democrats and republicans?? Because both had the opportunity to get OBL and chose not to...which leaves "joe dirt" opining on these forums...yes both Clinton and Bush should have got him, neither did....move on.

yes they meaning both. But bush is the one invading a country and lying about the reason he did so. They aren't trying to capture him so the war on terrorism excuse is total bull. And that's ok with you?

No proof to date Bush lied about WMD....the Iraqi Commission said the intel was faulty, not fabricated....sept 11, 2001 tells me the war on terrorism isn't an excuse, it simply began on that day because Clinton refused to be preemptive...shrugs....those pesky facts again...

What they also said also was that there was contradictory evidence showing he had no WMD program, and as is par for the course with Bush he chose to ignore and silence any contradictory information once his mind was made up.

points made and remains....no evidence Bush lied....

and almost 8 years later, he still hasn't captured him! what's the problem? still clintons fault I guess

when are you enlisting?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

If anyone really cares to see evidence that is documented and real fact, watch this movie.

Loose Change, the Conspiracy theorists 9/11 "epic"
Loose Change - debunked

Have you ever watched the movie?

And, if you have ever watched that movie, have you watched the Zeitgeist movie?

didn't sudan offer obl to the saudis who refused. do you have a link for your charges against clinton? specifcally that he was offered to the u.s. and clinton turned them down? what charges would we leveled against him in 1996 that he used weapons reagan gave him to kill the russians in afghanistan?



http://www.prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_..._bin_laden.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

If anyone really cares to see evidence that is documented and real fact, watch this movie.

Hope this doesn't stun you. It is in his own words in his own voice.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...1819.shtml?s=ic

On another thread I had suggested Snopes.com. You asked for specific links. They are too numerous to list out. Visit www.snopes.com, and in their "search" box use a variety of areas you want to pursue. It will take you awhile since their posts are extensive. I did "WTC building 7", 9/11 conspiracy, 9/11 collapse. Some of their posts will send you to engineering sites -- not government. (I had pursued this pretty extensively after Rosie O'Donnell made her claims -- I grew up in the metro NY area)

yes but on what grounds would clinton have extradited him? at that point he killed no americans, only russians at our behest.

.....Clinton did alot of him-hawing around and playing with interns when he was in office, hell he couldn't even catch the perpetrators of the first WTC bombing. It took another country to get Ramsey Yusef....wasn't Obama....I mean, Osama responsible for the planning of that fiasco?????

I need links... if you researched it, please leave the links here. All you have to do is copy them out of your browser, and then paste them in the response, I would appreciate it!



I'm from NY too.

Sorry. I am a tech-ILLITERATE.

(I grew up on Lon GIsland -- worked summers in HS and College in Brooklyn and mid-town Manhattan.)

The 9/11 Commission found no evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US.

Statements made by unindicted co-conspirator can be used to prosecute others but are not by themselves evidence of a criminal act.

Several prisoners in Gitmo have been released - even with military tribunals, only to rejoin Al Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission found no evidence to support the claim that Sudan offered Bin Laden to the US.

Statements made by unindicted co-conspirator can be used to prosecute others but are not by themselves evidence of a criminal act.

Several prisoners in Gitmo have been released - even with military tribunals, only to rejoin Al Qaeda.

And can you tell me what Sandy Berger thought was so important to hide from the american public that he risked his own incarceration hiding federal documents in his pants from the national archives and throwing them in a dumpster?

That is odd, since Clinton has since spoken of it, expressing it as one of his regrets from his presidency.

It is difficult to imagine Bush would have done anything differently.

The claim is based on a Newsmax article. There is no evidence that Sudan offered to turn Bin Laden over into US custody. Sudan offered to turn him over to the Saudis, but the Saudis refused.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?p...A61251-2001Oct2

It is difficult to imagine Bush would have done anything differently. After it was proved Bin Laden was behind the USS Cole and the African Embassy bombings, Bush did nothing for 9 months to get Bin Laden. Even after 9/11, with special forces hot on Bin Laden's trail, Bush diverted US military assets from Afghanistan to prepare for the Iraq invasion.

Incorrect. Sudan did not offer transferring Bin Laden into US custody. They offered the US (in exchange for other things) to transfer him to Saudi Arabia.

It seems even after 9/11, despite all the efforts to blame Clinton for not getting Bin Laden in the 90's, the Bush administration is still not sure what to do to fight Al Qaeda:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/30/washington/30tribal.html