Walker not sure whether Obama loves America - OR if he's a Christian!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0

- - - Updated - - -

If they arent dangerous then why dont you spread them on toast and eat them?

 

The game for the liberal media is to get one Rep talking down another Rep and talking up Obama. Walker refuses to play their game and now they are pouting about it. Good job Scott!

 

And Obama and the Democrats try to shift those two HUGE deficit increase to Bush because he was President even though he veto some of their 2008 spending increase and was powerless to stop the 2009 which President OBAMA signed into law as the bill was delayed to include his spending request.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh geez this is rich, HE was ASKED a QUESTION he didn't attack anyone. And if this is the best the left has you guys better be scared.

Again
It was a governors conference and he was there to be interviewed about the ideas the conference came up with and what he was doing in his own state.............so tell me what did the question about whether Obama is a Christian have to do with any of that...................let's here why the question? What was it's purpose?

Can't answer can you.

 

Actually no one knows how old all the chemical weapons shells found in all the areas they were found were. What we do know is they were hidden from the inspections, undeclared in a failed attempt to keep himself secretly armed.

And what we don know is he had hidden cache's of the highly toxic in their own right precursor chemicals and BRAND NEW chemical weapons shells hidden from inspections, undeclared he would have used to quickly rearm himself. So let's get off the canard Saddam was no longer a WMD threat.

 

How is this Scott Walker's business to know?

"Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling," - Phil. 2:12

It is not Scott Walker's responsibility to authenticate President Obama's faith in Christ or lack thereof. That is President Obama's business to decide.

It was a stupid question that had no business being asked. Full stop.

 

Well, it is old school. like 16th and 17th century old school And it will solve a lot of the problems today when a person is offended.

 

babahahhahahahahaaa conspiracy to try to say it was justified lol oh said the Bush defenders. Saddam was never a threat. The only threats are Republicans and their Holy Wars. I guess next you will say Saddam was behind 9/11 just like Bush did. Give it up Bush and Cheney lied just accept it and move on.

These kinds of statements are exactly why I will never respect any Republican they condone crap like this and then say or repeat it

 

YOu cannot compare the two. For starters, Rudy does not care for anyone who does not live in the upper East Side. He simply does not. He is no Saul Alinsky at all or Theordore Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan. He is far from any of those guys.

However, the far right conservatives are acting like Saul Alinsky. They have gotten into a tightwad simply because a black man became president. They have become afraid and use the typical fear tatics that :Rules for Radicals: emphasize, all because they disagree with the politics of the person elected into office.

bunch of wusses.

 

Speaking of wusses, that's what people who play the Race Card do.

Rudy has said nothing that comes as a surprise.

People who love their country don't seek to fundamentally transform it.

People who love their country don't incessantly lie to it.

People who love their country don't spend 20 years listening to a pastor damn it.

People who love their country wouldn't get caught dead in the living room of William Ayers, much less launch their political career in it.

 

But they were still dangerous,genius....which is exactly what the defense department said!

 

The rest of your article is bogus. We DO know what the shelf-life of sarin and other agents are. And it's certainly less than fifteen years. Also, your article mentions that these agents could be "re-packaged", alluding to the Tokyo subway attacks... while ignoring that the sarin used in those attacks were produced FOR the attack, not re-packaged from decaying relics of a bygone age.

Regardless of any of that, we didn't invade Iraq because they had 500 decaying munitions that they got from us in the first place. Hell, WE still have chemical weapons stockpiles that are just as degraded in this country. Should we invade ourselves?

 

Not my article...it's from the department of defense,genius!

 

It's the article that you provided, hence YOUR article. Are you unfamiliar with the English language?

 

I did not write it,genius...it's called a link!

You do know what a link is, don't you?

If I quote you does that mean it's my quote?

 

First off, watch the insults, I never claimed you wrote it. Secondly, yes, I know what a link is, peoshi. Do you understand that the word "your" doesn't necessarily imply ownership or authorship?

 

Then how can you claim it is mine if I did not author it nor do I own it?

What exactly does "your article" imply then?

 

Because you provided it. Lord, do I have to teach you elementary English or something? If somebody says something about "your" family member, do you huff and puff, call that person an idiot, and say "I DON'T OWN THEM!"

 

How does providing it make it mine?

Speaking of learning english:

provide
verb pro·vide \prə-ˈvīd\

: to make (something) available : to supply (something that is wanted or needed)

 

Do you know what the word associate means? You are associated with the article because you provided it. In the same way that a dessert dish that you bring to a party is your dish, even if you didn't make it. I mean come on, dude, seriously. Elementary school English

Do you say things like "your family" or "your friends"? Same principle. You didn't make your family or friends, but we still use the word your because you are ASSOCIATED with them.

 

I'm not associated with it...I simply made it available.

Anyone else on here could have linked it just as easily as I did, if I link to a photo made by a complete stranger does that make it "my" photo?

If I link to a thread on this forum that I have not participated in, or even read, does that make it "my" thread?

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...mcdonald-lied-about-being-special-forces.html

 

So we can't refer to a dessert that you provide to a party as "your dish", because you only provided it?

It depends on the context, but yes, you can. You don't seem to grasp that these words don't solely denote ownership.

 

We are not talking about a "dish"...this is an article that I did not write, did not publish, and is freely available to the public.

Going by your logic you are associated with it simply by reading or mentioning it.

So is it "your" article too?

 

Walker just tied himself to a total liar with Giulianni;http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/what-does-it-mean-to-love-america--403315779817 Now that Giulianni had to back off on his statements about Obama loving this country, saying, "I'm not questioning what his motives are or what is in his heart", lol, which is exactly what the liar did, and now, one will need to ask Walker what he means about not being sure about Obama loving this country. Lol! I mean Rudy just set up Walker, and now Walker has been placed in an embarrassing predicament now, because Walker is directly tied to the liar Rudy and his comments.

 

Dude, why are we even still discussing this stupid semantic argument? Your can be applied to things you don't own, but provide for certain people. End of story. I've given you numerous examples of this, none of which you've refuted. How this has any bearing on the validity of the article you provided (I'll avoid using your anymore considering your lunacy whenever it's used)?

 

I seriously think republicans have been spending too much time on republican hate boards and it's rubbing off on them