Democrat, Republican or Redneck??

[Jacostang]

Are you a Democrat, Republican, or a Redneck?

Here is a little test that will help you decide.

The answer can be found by posing the following question:





#You're walking down a

deserted street with your wife and
two small children.


Suddenly, an Islamic
Terrorist with a huge knife comes
around the corner, locks eyes with you,
screams obscenities, praises
Allah, raises the
knife, and charges at you.


You are carrying a
Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.


You have mere seconds
before he reaches you and your family. What do
you do?
.................................................. ......










THINK CAREFULLY AND

THEN SCROLL DOWN:




Democrat's
Answer :



Well, that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock
the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kindof message
does this send to society and to my children? Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be
content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my
family get away while he was stabbing me? Should I call
9-1-1? Why is this street so deserted? We need to raise taxes, have paint and weed day and make this happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with
some friends for few days and try to come to a
consensus.


.................................................. .............




Republican's
Answer:




BANG!



.................................................. ..........




Redneck's Answer:



BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG! Click
Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy! Were those the Winchester
Silver Tips or Hollow Points?! '
Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'
Wife: 'You ain't taking that to the Taxidermist

[Bandit]

I love this line " Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me? "

Put me down for one bang... :pinkthumb:

[IMSHAKN]

One clean shot is all I care to waste on a single one of them bastards. One bang here. :laughing:

[1966PonyGirl]

RoFLMAO!!!!!!! totally forwarding this to some people!

[BurnTire]

LOL when Bin Laden was in our sights the Republicans were scared to pull the trigger.

Democrats would have went Bang Bang.:Gun1:

[BurnTire]

POLITICS-US: Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden after 9/11
By Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Sep 29 (IPS) - New evidence from former U.S. officials reveals that the George W. Bush administration failed to adopt any plan to block the retreat of Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders from Afghanistan to Pakistan in the first weeks after 9/11.

That failure was directly related to the fact that top administration officials gave priority to planning for war with Iraq over military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

As a result, the United States had far too few troops and strategic airlift capacity in the theatre to cover the large number of possible exit routes through the border area when bin Laden escaped in late 2001.

Because it had not been directed to plan for that contingency, the U.S. military had to turn down an offer by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in late November 2001 to send 60,000 troops to the border passes to intercept them, according to accounts provided by former U.S. officials involved in the issue.

On Nov. 12, 2001, as Northern Alliance troops were marching on Kabul with little resistance, the CIA had intelligence that bin Laden was headed for a cave complex in the Tora Bora Mountains close to the Pakistani border.

The war had ended much more quickly than expected only days earlier. CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks, who was responsible for the war in Afghanistan, had no forces in position to block bin Laden's exit.

Franks asked Lt. Gen. Paul T. Mikolashek, commander of Army Central Command (ARCENT), whether his command could provide a blocking force between al Qaeda and the Pakistani border, according to David W. Lamm, who was then commander of ARCENT Kuwait.

Lamm, a retired Army colonel, recalled in an interview that there was no way to fulfill the CENTCOM commander's request, because ARCENT had neither the troops nor the strategic lift in Kuwait required to put such a force in place. "You looked at that request, and you just shook your head," recalled Lamm, now chief of staff of the Near East South Asia Centre for Strategic Studies at the National Defence University.

Franks apparently already realised that he would need Pakistani help in blocking the al Qaeda exit from Tora Bora. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told a National Security Council meeting that Franks "wants the [Pakistanis] to close the transit points between Afghanistan and Pakistan to seal what's going in and out", according to the National Security Council meeting transcript in Bob Woodward's book "Bush at War".

Bush responded that they would need to "press Musharraf to do that".

A few days later, Franks made an unannounced trip to Islamabad to ask Musharraf to deploy troops along the Pakistan-Afghan border near Tora Bora.

A deputy to Franks, Lt. Gen. Mike DeLong, later claimed that Musharraf had refused Franks's request for regular Pakistani troops to be repositioned from the north to the border near the Tora Bora area. DeLong wrote in his 2004 book "Inside Centcom" that Musharraf had said he "couldn't do that", because it would spark a "civil war" with a hostile tribal population.

But U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin, who accompanied Franks to the meeting with Musharraf, provided an account of the meeting to this writer that contradicts DeLong's claim.

Chamberlin, now president of the Middle East Institute in Washington, recalled that the Pakistani president told Franks that CENTCOM had vastly underestimated what was required to block bin Laden exit from Afghanistan. Musharraf said, "Look you are missing the point: there are 150 valleys through which al Qaeda are going to stream into Pakistan," according to Chamberlin.

Although Musharraf admitted that the Pakistani government had never exercised control over the border area, the former diplomat recalled, he said this was "a good time to begin". The Pakistani president offered to redeploy 60,000 troops to the area from the border with India but said his army would need airlift assistance from the United States to carry out the redeployment.

But the Pakistani redeployment never happened, according to Lamm, because it wasn't logistically feasible. Lamm recalled that it would have required an entire aviation brigade, including hundreds of helicopters, and hundreds of support troops to deliver that many combat troops to the border region -- far more than was available.

Lamm said the ARCENT had so few strategic lift resources that it had to use commercial aircraft at one point to move U.S. supplies in and out of Afghanistan.

Even if the helicopters had been available, however, they could not have operated with high effectiveness in the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border region near the Tora Bora caves, according to Lamm, because of the combination of high altitude and extreme weather.

Franks did manage to insert 1,200 Marines to Kandahar on Nov. 26 to establish control of the airbase there. They were carried to the base by helicopters from an aircraft carrier that had steamed into the Gulf from the Pacific, according to Lamm.

The marines patrolled roads in the Kandahar area hoping to intercept al Qaeda officials heading toward Pakistan. But DeLong, now retired from the Army, said in an interview that the Marines would not have been able to undertake the blocking mission at the border. "It wouldn't have worked -- even if we could have gotten them up there," he said. "There weren't enough to police 1,500 kilometres of border."

U.S. troops probably would also have faced armed resistance from the local tribal population in the border region, according to DeLong. The tribesmen in local villages near the border "liked bin Laden," he said "because he had given them millions of dollars."

Had the Bush administration's priority been to capture or kill the al Qaeda leadership, it would have deployed the necessary ground troops and airlift resources in the theatre over a period of months before the offensive in Afghanistan began.

"You could have moved American troops along the Pakistani border before you went into Afghanistan," said Lamm. But that would have meant waiting until spring 2002 to take the offensive against the Taliban, according to Lamm.

The views of Bush's key advisers, however, ruled out any such plan from the start. During the summer of 2001, Rumsfeld had refused to develop contingency plans for military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan despite a National Security Presidential Directive adopted at the Deputies' Committee level in July and by the Principles on Sep. 4 that called for such planning, according to the 9/11 Commission report.

Rumsfeld and Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz resisted such planning for Afghanistan because they were hoping that the White House would move quickly on military intervention in Iraq. According to the 9/11 Commission, at four deputies' meetings on Iraq between May 31 and Jul. 26, 2001, Wolfowitz pushed his idea to have U.S. troops seize all the oil fields in southern Iraq.

Even after Sep. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush's top secret order of Sep. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford's book "Pretext for War".

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defence Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden's escape to Pakistan.

*Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specialising in U.S. national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in 2006.

Source:
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=44054

[jjmatheson]

Oh boy:sticktonge:

[jjmatheson]

Obama will just talk and negotiate with Bin Laden.

[ASUSMC]

Obama will just talk and negotiate with Bin Laden.

Probably give him a good meal too. He and his friends did put him thru school, and are helping finance his campaign

[Bandit]

Obama will just talk and negotiate with Bin Laden.

They probably even have a few of the same friends...

After the Democrats reduce the military to a few old
slingshots and an old rowboat, that's all you would be able to do, and
you better hope he is in the mood to negotiate, or even talk.

[jjmatheson]

Will they take our bow and arrows to? :sticktonge:

[Jacostang]

ESPN reports they are delaying the start of one of the world series games so that Obama's 30 min. message can be seen... Wow the media and the bias never has been this bad as I recall...........

[BurnTire]

Jacostang get ready for obama in the white house.

[jjmatheson]

Don't patronize him, dont worry Jacostang as soon as Obama gets in your employer will have to let you go because there taxes will go up. Sorry I guess Im as bad as you Burntire. I wish we could vote (choose) for a real president, this is a joke. Both these guys are clowns.

[BurnTire]

Don't patronize him, dont worry Jacostang as soon as Obama gets in your employer will have to let you go because there taxes will go up. Sorry I guess Im as bad as you Burntire. I wish we could vote (choose) for a real president, this is a joke. Both these guys are clowns.

:hyper:

[1966PonyGirl]

ESPN reports they are delaying the start of one of the world series games so that Obama's 30 min. message can be seen... Wow the media and the bias never has been this bad as I recall...........

how dare they impede and temporarilly uphold my baseball!!! Obama is a heretic!!!!!

and your prolly right! i dont think the overall media bias was this bad. all the news and media and lemming actors have been pretty biased.

[AZSonicSnake]

I wish we could vote (choose) for a real president, this is a joke. Both these guys are clowns.

this sums up my feelings in this election. we are screwed either way....:yes:

[IMSHAKN]

I'm calling in sick the day after the election as I'll probably see sick to my stomach and see the results of the election. I'll probably puke if/when (more likely when) NObama gets elected. :barf:

[1966PonyGirl]

this is what my friend emailed me back in response to the joke.....

"
I’m probably somewhere between Republican and Redneck cuz I’d shoot a few shots and try to take the knife as a souvenier so I think im an Independent. "

[ASUSMC]

My answer to that is what I was always taught growing up around weapons with a Dad who is former Army. One shot, one kill. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

[jjmatheson]

Wanna get more pissed off, read this. The source is a liberal news paper, San Francisco Chronical. The average American listening to all the news of bank failures, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (who?) being taken over by the government, and now a bail-out of large, privately owned and well known companies, is at first bewildered, and then angry. The average American should be furious. But with whom should Americans be furious? That seems to be the big question as political fingers are pointing in every direction.
>
> Was it greedy CEOs with their golden parachutes? Was it the Democrats? Was it the Republicans? Was it Wall Street? Who, exactly IS? The simple answer is that it is all of the above. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Jr., and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke were on Capital Hill taking a verbal beating from some of the very people who should not be asking the questions, but answering them and answering those questions under oath. Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.) and Congressman Barney Frank, (D-Mass.) are the first two who should be grilled, not by fellow politicians, but by an independent and hopefully very clever, angry, and mean attorney hired by the American people.
>
> No one from the present Justice Department need apply. Both should be asked how much money they have taken from lobbyists hired by the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Since that is public record, they should then be asked what Fannie and Freddie got in return for that money.
>
> Barney Frank should be questioned about his House Bill, H.R. 3838, that is clearly designed to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat as long as possible despite all the signs that there was serious trouble ahead. But all his bill did was make the hole bigger in the side of the Titanic. Basically all H. R. 3838 did was: To temporarily increase the portfolio caps applicable to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, to provide the necessary financing to curb foreclosures by facilitating the refinancing of at-risk sub-prime
> borrowers into safe, affordable loans, and for other purposes.
>
> Barney Frank and his counterpart in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.) did everything they could to delay and cover-up the outright fraud and book-cooking that was going on within Freddie and Fannie. As far back as 2003, Freddie and Fannie were $9 billion dollars in debt because of bad loans that continued to be accepted on a daily basis. Pressure from liberals in Congress to continue giving out bad loans was relentless and for years it continued with CEOs, who happen to be friends of Dodd, Frank, Schumer, and Clinton, leaving with millions in their bank accounts as the companies they ran went under.
>
> The truth is that this financial disaster for the American taxpayer didn't begin under George Bush, or Bill Clinton, or George Herbert Walker Bush, or Ronald Reagan. It started under Jimmy Carter . It started with the passing of The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977. Basically, this act pushed local community banks and lenders, to bend the rules a little and give loans to low-income families. Like many liberal schemes, it seemed like a good idea at the time. There was a provision that protected the nervous lender in the clause that stated that loans should be given in a safe and sound manner. This gave the bank some leeway and choice in the loans that were given out.
>
> Under Bill Clinton, The Community Reinvestment Act was revised. Basically, the revision started to put pressure on lenders to take more financial risks. It was felt that lenders were not being to minorities and the poor who only wanted to share in the American dream of owning their own home. Janet Reno began to outwardly threaten banks and mortgage lenders with prosecution if home loans were not approved for those who wanted to purchase homes that, in truth, they could not afford.
>
> Fearing federal retribution, loans started being approved for people who had no down-payment, no jobs, no collateral, and absolutely no hope of ever being able to meet any mortgage payment after the grace period of low interest ran out. Then, the greed took over. Banks would up loans, good and bad, and sell them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, making all their money up front for loans they knew would default eventually. As these loans did default, in larger and larger numbers, even Fannie and Freddie could no longer stand up under the hemorrhage of money loss. Wall Street panicked and so did the federal government.
>
> Were there warning signs that a disaster was looming? Of course, there were. But there was money to be made and politicians and CEOs alike were not about to give up the gravy train of money being crammed in their pockets. The CEO of Freddie and Fannie would hire lobbyists to slip money into the pockets of Senator Chris Dodd, (D-Conn.), chairman of the Senate banking committee, who was supposed to be overseeing the banking industry, to the tune of $133,900 since 1989. Barack Obama was number two at the trough with over $120,000 which was no small feat since he has only been in the Senate for three years. Dodd and Obama were closely followed by the last Democratic nominee, John Kerry, (D-Mass.) and then Senator Hillary Clinton, (D-N.Y.)
>
> What were these lobbyists buying for the millions they sprinkled around the Senate and House of Representatives? They were buying a blind eye. They were buying little or no oversight into the juggernaut that has finally crashed on the heads of the American taxpayer. CEO's got rich, politicians got rich and they got votes, being able to tell minorities and the poor, see what we are doing for you. For years, the red flags were stuffed under the desk and ignored.
>
> Early in his administration, George Bush sounded an alarm over the small amount of working capital Fannie and Freddie had on hand. He urged them to sell more shares to increase their reserve in funding and put them on more stable ground. He urged them to be more selective in the loans they bought. This suggestion was declined because the current stockholders would not make as much profit.
>
> Franklin Raines, the Fannie Mae CEO from 1999 to 2004, decided to retire early, taking millions with him, under a cloud of accusations that he had cooked the books to make it appear the company was making money instead of going head-long into debt. Another player in this financial kabuki dance is Jamie Gorelick. That name should ring a bell with every American. She seems to surface right at the heart of every American disaster in the last 15 years. Ms. Gorelick was vice-chair of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003. Like all the others, she left with millions in her pocket while declaring that Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions.' The next year it was found that Fannie was $9 billion dollars in the red.
>
> Oddly, this $9 billion had been overlooked in the books Ms. Gorelick and Mr. Raines kept. Let's put Mr. Raines and Ms. Gorelick on the stand. The American people deserve to hear how much they gave lobbyists to pass on to their friends in Congress to keep the blinders on. That number is a staggering $16.2 million dollars since 1997. That amount bought very large blinders. And, it bought time. It bought time for the likes of Raines and Gorelick to make their millions and bow out before the bottom fell out. Republican nominee John McCain raised the alarm two years ago but his plan for more oversight was killed in the Democrat-controlled committee. Over 20-year span, McCain took $20,000 but this did not stop him from voicing his concerns. The problem was that Democrats didn't want to hear about it. President Bushs warnings were also ignored. Should Bush have done more? Yes. Unfortunately, Bush was distracted by the 9/11 attack and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. So now, nearly every hour Americans watch as a pompous Chris Dodd or Barney Frank struts to a microphone to declare the failed economic policies of the Bush administration are responsible for this mess.
>
> No, Senator, he is not. YOU and your greedy friends are responsible. It took three decades to reach the point of no return and some were there with their hands out nearly all of those years. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is launching a full investigation into all of this. This investigation will abruptly end should Barack Obama win in November.
>
> The last thing Democrats want is the American people learning how complicit so many of them are in the illegal practice at Fannie and Freddie that led to the taxpayers bearing the brunt of the their unbridled greed. While politicians want oversight over the bail-out, there has been little outcry for an investigation into how all this evolved.
>
> It's time for Americans to go to their windows and throw them open and yell, We are mad as hell and we aren't going to take it anymore.
>
> Then, in November, vote the lot of them out of office.