HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Lawrence Needs a Psychiatrist ()
Date: February 12, 2010 02:49PM

I think the liberals continue to show their irrational thinking in every way. This clip - O'Donnell's reaction - reminds me of the liberal reaction to all things, including posts on this forum.

LIBERALS ARE GOING OFF THE DEEPEND - UNHINGED.


Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 02:56PM

If O'Donnell needs a shrink, most conservative commentators need to be institutionalized...



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: February 12, 2010 03:05PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If O'Donnell needs a shrink, most conservative
> commentators need to be institutionalized...
>
>

Is Bill trying to do a comparison with Barney (in the thumbnail)?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 03:10PM

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If O'Donnell needs a shrink, most conservative
> > commentators need to be institutionalized...
> >
> >
>
> Is Bill trying to do a comparison with Barney (in
> the thumbnail)?


Umm. Bill was screaming first. Sorry.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: February 12, 2010 03:15PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If O'Donnell needs a shrink, most
> conservative
> > > commentators need to be institutionalized...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Is Bill trying to do a comparison with Barney
> (in
> > the thumbnail)?
>
>
> Umm. Bill was screaming first. Sorry.

I didn't view the video - I am just talking about the thumbnail of the video it shows - with Bill holding his fingers about 12 inches apart.

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 03:53PM

Funny how all you libs saved your comments about the fact that the second video shows how when you cukes get caught lying you fall back on catch phrases lile your yelling or your bullying me or I didn't mean that.
SAY WHAT YOU MEAN AND STOP TRYING TO TWIST SHIT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE ALL TE TIME BY INSCINUATING THERE IS SOME ALTERNATIVE UNDERSTANDING TO THE JIBBERISH YOU TALK and that every conservative is just a bully.

By the way why does that lispy-bastard even go out in public?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 03:56PM

^ UNHINGED AOL DORK AGAIN. TALKS WITH A LISP HIMSELF, YET IS CRITICAL. DOES NOT BELIEVE IN COMMAS OR SOLID LOGIC. PROBABLY IS SLOW. WIPES ASS BACK-TO-FRONT. ^

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 03:57PM

Was O'Donnell wrong? Did Bush protect us against 9/11? Was Bin Laden not Public Enemy #1 when he came into office? Was Al Qaeda not a well-known threat before 9/11?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Uh huh..... ()
Date: February 12, 2010 03:58PM

That's why you provide such stimulating insight with your silly-goose antics.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:02PM

Top Focus Before 9/11 Wasn't on Terrorism
Rice Speech Cited Missile Defense
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40697-2004Mar31?language=printer
Quote

...
"The first major foreign policy directive of this administration was the new strategy to eliminate al Qaeda that the White House ordered soon after taking office. It was eliminating al Qaeda, not missile defense, not Iraq, and not the [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty," he said.

The administration requested such a directive in May 2001, but it did not take shape until a week before Sept. 11, according to a staff report of the commission investigating attacks. Bush signed the final directive in October, weeks after the attack.

A review of major public pronouncements in the first eight months of 2001 found relatively few extensive statements by Bush, Vice President Cheney or Rice about al Qaeda, bin Laden or other Islamic extremist groups.

The president set the tone. In his first address to Congress, on Feb. 27, 2001, Bush acknowledged the danger of bomb-wielding terrorists, but also promoted missile defense as the priority in protecting the United States.

"Our nation also needs a clear strategy to confront the threats of the 21st century, threats that are more widespread and less certain. They range from terrorists who threaten with bombs to tyrants and rogue nations intent on developing weapons of mass destruction. To protect our own people, our allies and friends, we must develop and we must deploy effective missile defenses," he said. Later this year, the administration plans to put into operation the first phase of a system to intercept and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.

In most public comments about Afghanistan before Sept. 11, Bush talked mainly about limited freedoms afforded under Taliban rule. One of the few presidential statements citing bin Laden and al Qaeda was on June 30, 2001, in a letter renewing Clinton administration-era sanctions on the Taliban.

During the summer of 2001, as al Qaeda operatives were in flight training and finalizing plans for the attacks, the administration's public focus was on other matters.

After his first meeting with NATO heads of state in Brussels in June 2001, Bush outlined the five top defense issues discussed with the closest U.S. allies. Missile defense was at the top of the list, followed by developing a NATO relationship with Russia, working in common purpose with Europe, increased defense spending in NATO countries, and enlarging the alliance to include former East European countries. The only reference to extremists was in Macedonia, where Bush said regional forces were seeking to subvert a new democracy.

Top officials continued that public focus right up to the eve of the al Qaeda attacks. On Aug. 2, 2001, Cheney emphasized the bold new U.S. plan for a 21st century approach to security. "We're fundamentally transforming the U.S. strategic relationship around the world as we look at missile defenses and modifications to our offensive strategic arms," he said at a news conference with Republican congressional leaders on Capitol Hill.

And two days before Sept. 11, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Rice said the administration was ready "to get serious about the business of dealing with this emergent threat. Ballistic missiles are ubiquitous now."

In the speech prepared for Sept. 11, Rice intended to point out that the United States had spent $11 billion on counterterrorism, about twice as much as it spent on missile defense, during the previous year, although the speech did not point out that that was when President Bill Clinton was still in office.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:04PM

Uh huh..... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That's why you provide such stimulating insight
> with your silly-goose antics.

^ AOL TROLL GAY POST AGAIN. WEARS STRIDE RITES. CAUGHT ON CAMERA WITH MALE MUSIC TEACHER. FAN OF JUSTIN BEIBER.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:18PM

Bush dropped the ball on Bin Laden. Plain and simple.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:22PM

^ CONGRATS WTL. POST MAKES SENSE. HURT COMPUTER RAM THOUGH. NEED GRAIN ALCOHOL TO GET BY. ^

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Stupid Libs ()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:33PM

Really? Bush dropped the ball?
Please elaborate.

Also, tell me if you think that if Osama Bin Laden gets captured while Obama's in office, that Obama should get the credit NOT our COUNTRY and our MEN AND WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES.

Also you asswads love to forget about the other terrorist name Saddame Hussien. Just because him and Ya boy share a name won't make US forget. We have been fughting a war on terror for alot longer than bush and 9-11 ASSHOLES.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:37PM

^ AOL HAHA TROLL NEVER FAILS TO DISAPPOINT. HE HANGS OUT AT SCHOOL PLAYGROUNDS AFTER 3PM. CLAIMS HE WAS A SOLDIER. NEVER FOUGHT FOR OUR FREEDOMS BEHIND COMPUTER. ^

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:44PM

Check.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:45PM

Stupid Libs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Really? Bush dropped the ball?
> Please elaborate.
>


Bush was sworn into office in January of 2001. On September 11, when he had been President for nine months, this happened...

wtc911.jpg

This is the guy who did it...

bin.jpg

Bush, who was President for nine months, did nothing to stop it.

Hence, Bush dropped the ball.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Putuey ()
Date: February 12, 2010 04:47PM

Ya Boy Obama has been in office for OVER A YEAR NOW.
Why doesn't your righteous master just bring Osama in so we can punish him?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:49PM

^ AOL HAHA TROLL TRIES TOO HARD, BUT GETS THE LEAST. SHOULD WIN AN AWARD. NOT FOR ORIGINALITY, BUT FOR BRINGING UP THE REAR. LIKES BEING THERE FOR SOME REASON. ^

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 04:53PM

What's that supposed to mean?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Price ()
Date: February 12, 2010 08:02PM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bush was sworn into office in January of 2001. On
> September 11, when he had been President for nine
> months, this happened...
> Bush, who was President for nine months, did
> nothing to stop it.
> Hence, Bush dropped the ball.

You fail. Preparation for 9/11 attack started in mid 90s. Most of the highjackers entered the States in 2000. Who was the POTUS then?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 08:19PM

According to a recent poll..."A full 52 percent of nationwide respondents believe people should be concerned about Obama's citizenship" .....Now tell me, could it be possible that the same people that killed Kennedy, faked the Moon landing and conspired on 9/11 also be forging a presidents citizenship??? I'm going to form a new movement called the Psychiatric Movement to get these so called "Birthers" medicated.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 08:39PM

Price Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You fail. Preparation for 9/11 attack started in
> mid 90s. Most of the highjackers entered the
> States in 2000. Who was the POTUS then?

What's to say that Clinton wouldn't have stopped the attacks if he had been President in 2001? He had done so before. Bush, on the other hand, didn't consider Al Qaeda to be a threat.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Date: February 12, 2010 08:40PM

Price Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> You fail. Preparation for 9/11 attack started in
> mid 90s. Most of the highjackers entered the
> States in 2000. Who was the POTUS then?

To put it another way, the planning for the Bay of Pigs occurred under Eisenhower. But who does history blame for it because it occurred on his watch?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Price ()
Date: February 12, 2010 10:50PM

Clinton would have stopped? When did the USS Cole bombing happen? Or embassy bombings in Africa? Exactly...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2010 10:53PM by Price.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Registered Voter ()
Date: February 13, 2010 01:49AM

It seems the State Department was moving on Bin Laden with the same amount of follow up that was started under Clinton. Evidently the ground work had already been laid before Bush got into office that the Taliban was not serious about giving him up, and it also appears folks in the State Department were missing signals being given. Based on the "Bush was stupid" premise, you have to figure Colin Powell was the one providing follow-up to Bush on the issue and how to proceed. Barring some incredible coup by our intelligence services that had already admitted they did not have the resources to make any significant inroads with "on the ground" assets (for a variety of reasons - not the least of which was cutting of their funding through the 1990s) to get any meaningful intelligence on Bin Laden or others - seriously, it is hard to understand how things could have been any different. The terrorists all started training in the US long BEFORE Bush was elected or even got into office, so it would have been something that should have hit the radar long before that time.

Diplomats Met With Taliban on Bin Laden
Some Contend U.S. Missed Its Chance
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/US_met_taliban.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A3483-2001Oct28&notFound=true
Quote

By David B.Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, October 29, 2001; Page A01

Over three years and on as many continents, U.S. officials met in public and secret at least 20 times with Taliban representatives to discuss ways the regime could bring suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden to justice.

Talks continued until just days before the Sept. 11 attacks, and Taliban representatives repeatedly suggested they would hand over bin Laden if their conditions were met, sources close to the discussions said.

...

"We were not serious about the whole thing, not only this administration but the previous one," said Richard Hrair Dekmejian, an expert in Islamic fundamentalism and author at the University of Southern California. "We did not engage these people creatively. There were missed opportunities."

U.S. officials struggled to communicate with Muslim clerics unfamiliar with modern diplomacy and distrustful of the Western world, and they failed to take advantage of fractures in the Taliban leadership.

"We never heard what they were trying to say," said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "We had no common language. Ours was, 'Give up bin Laden.' They were saying, 'Do something to help us give him up.' "

...

The diplomatic effort to snare bin Laden began as early as 1996, when officials devised a plan to use back channels to Sudan, one of seven countries on the U.S. list of terrorist-supporting states. Under the plan, bin Laden would be arrested in Khartoum and extradited to Saudi Arabia, which would turn him over to the United States.

But the United States could not persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and Sudan instead expelled him to Afghanistan in May 1996 -- a few months before the Taliban seized power in Kabul.


The Clinton administration did not begin seriously pressing the Taliban for bin Laden's expulsion until the August 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 people, including 12 Americans, and injured 4,600.

The bombings were "a seminal moment," changing Washington's view of the Taliban, an administration official said. The attacks convinced U.S. policymakers that Omar was no longer simply interested in conquering Afghanistan, but that his protection was allowing bin Laden, a longtime friend, to engage in terrorist ventures abroad.

...

On Feb. 3, 1999, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Karl E. Inderfurth, the Clinton administration's point man for talks with the Taliban, and Michael Sheehan, State Department counterterrorism chief, went to Islamabad to deliver a stern message to the Taliban's deputy foreign minister, Abdul Jalil: The United States henceforth would hold the Taliban responsible for any terrorist act by bin Laden.

By that time, bin Laden had been indicted for his alleged role in the embassy bombings. The officials reviewed the indictment in detail with the Taliban and offered to provide more evidence if the Taliban sent a delegation to New York. The Taliban did not do so.

...

U.N. pressure steadily mounted. In October 1999, a Security Council resolution demanded the Taliban turn over bin Laden to "appropriate authorities" but left open the possibility he could be tried somewhere besides a U.S. court.

...

Throughout 1999 and 2000, Inderfurth, Sheehan and Thomas R. Pickering, then undersecretary of state, continued meeting in Washington, Islamabad, New York and Bonn to review evidence against bin Laden. They warned of war if there were another terrorist attack.

...

Even after Sept. 11, as U.S. aircraft carriers and warplanes rushed toward Afghanistan, the Taliban's mysterious maneuvering continued.

Bearden, the former CIA administrator, picked up his phone in Reston in early October and dialed a satellite number in Kandahar. Hashimi answered, still full of optimism that Saudi clerics and an upcoming conference of Islamic nations would give their blessing to Bush's demand that they "cough him up."

"There was a 50-50 chance something could happen," Hashimi told Bearden, "if the Saudis stepped in."

Five days later, bin Laden remained at large and the United States began pummeling Kandahar and other Taliban strongholds.

"I have no doubts they wanted to get rid of him. He was a pain in the neck," Bearden said of bin Laden. "It never clicked."

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Radiophile ()
Date: February 13, 2010 11:14AM

Price Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clinton would have stopped? When did the USS Cole
> bombing happen? Or embassy bombings in Africa?
> Exactly...


Ummmm....Hmmmmm. I may be a liberal but I seem to remember that the USS COle bombing and the African embassy bombings happened off our shores. I will have to wiki it though.

And the first WTC bombing and the bombing in Oklahoma city, Clinton made a pledge immediately that the perpertrators would be captured and bought to justice. Oh, how did that work out. Oh right, they were.

Of the eight prime suspects in the WTC case, seven were quickly apprehended and brought to justice, with Yasin having been captured in Iraq, where he was doing time as recently as 2002.

But it is ok, these facts confuse sarah Palin as well.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Price ()
Date: February 13, 2010 12:33PM

Has Clinton prevented those terrorist acts? No. That's the point.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Radiophile ()
Date: February 13, 2010 04:22PM

Price Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Has Clinton prevented those terrorist acts? No.
> That's the point.

You are an idiot!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: pedophile ()
Date: February 13, 2010 04:24PM

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Price Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Has Clinton prevented those terrorist acts? No.
> > That's the point.
>
> You are an idiot!


You are a faggot!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Pediophile ()
Date: February 13, 2010 04:31PM

No, I'm a faggotass idiot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: Mr. Misery ()
Date: February 14, 2010 12:40AM

Lawrence Needs a Psychiatrist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the liberals continue to show their
> irrational thinking in every way. This clip -
> O'Donnell's reaction - reminds me of the liberal
> reaction to all things, including posts on this
> forum.
>
> LIBERALS ARE GOING OFF THE DEEPEND - UNHINGED.
>
>
I'm gonna clean up this forum...I'm declaring war on hack political rhetoric, one onion ring at a time!
Attachments:
friedfood.jpg

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: § ()
Date: February 14, 2010 12:44AM

Jesus H. Christmas. Too much grease in these here threads.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell - Liberal goes unhinged
Posted by: ThePackLeader ()
Date: February 14, 2010 02:58AM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If O'Donnell needs a shrink, most conservative
> commentators need to be institutionalized...
>
>


Just about anyone who debates that slobbering Elmer Fudd sounding queer, wins by default.

==================================================================================================
"And if any women or children get their legs torn off, or faces caved in, well, it's tough shit for them." -2LT. Bert Stiles, 505th, 339th (On Berlin Bombardier Mission, 1944).

Options: ReplyQuote


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **    **  **     **  **         **         *******  
 ***   **  **     **  **    **   **        **     ** 
 ****  **  **     **  **    **   **               ** 
 ** ** **  **     **  **    **   **         *******  
 **  ****  **     **  *********  **               ** 
 **   ***  **     **        **   **        **     ** 
 **    **   *******         **   ********   *******  
This forum powered by Phorum.