Oliver Willis

14 Responses to “Clue Sighted”

1. 1 jerry
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 2:11 am

   Pretty bad ad, but it’s a long overdue start.

   It took less time for us to defeat Hitler than it has taken us to accomplish whatever it is we are trying to accomplish in Iraq.

2. 2 SaveFarris
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 8:46 am

   This ad doesn’t even last 5 seconds before it fails the laugh test. The first criticism is that there “aren’t enough troops”. Why then, pray tell, are the Democrats running on … troop withdrawls?!?

3. 3 Mike
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 9:37 am

   I don’t even have to watch the ad. Just the visible opening card, “Iran developing nuclear weapons,” is a side-splitter.

   The “official” Democrat solution to Iran (via John Kerry): give them nuclear fuel and then whine to the UN.

   Yeah … problem solved. Maybe the UN will get around to it after they figure out how to disarm Hezbollah.

4. 4 Rex Mundane
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 10:00 am

   See now I’m confused, is it:
   A - Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist leftocratic libbyleftoids have no plan for Iraq whatsoever! Let us Mock them!
   B - Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist licencious libertine linguistic labia leftshtapo have a plan for Iraq but it doesnt fix the problems Bush created! Let us Mock them!
   C - Haha! The lonny leftist liberal elitist lex luthor licks lana lang lustily libroleftocrapumongoloids have a plan, but I’m still obligated to hate them so I get to drastically misrepresent Kerry on something unrelated not addressing the issue even. Let us Mock them!

   Oh wait, didnt notice the D- All of the above option. Now it makes sense.

5. 5 midderpidge
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 10:53 am

   Hmmm, the untried John Kerry solution vs. the Bush solution. I like Kerry’s better. THe Bush ‘ignore it and hope it goes away’ policy that has now blossomed into the ‘getting critical, can’t ignore it, let’s try to rattle the saber and hope someone else bails us out’ policy just doesn’t seem to be effective.

6. 6 Zython
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 11:10 am

   This ad doesn’t even last 5 seconds before it fails the laugh test. The first criticism is that there “aren’t enough troops”. Why then, pray tell, are the Democrats running on … troop withdrawls?!?

   Because thanks to Iraq because a total clusterf***, there can’t BE enough troops in Iraq without compromising other areas, due to lack of recruitment. Next.

   The “official” Democrat solution to Iran (via John Kerry): give them nuclear fuel and then whine to the UN.

   When the hell did Kerry ever say that we should gove nuclear fuel to Iran? Furthermore, how would you know about anything that Kerry said with your head that far up your ass? Besides, giving deadly supplies to brutal dictatorships sounds more like a Reagan thing to me.

7. 7 Rex Mundane
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 11:22 am

   Let me get that one for you there Zython before Mike or Farris can incorrectly answer it for you. Iran was looking into Uranium and we knew it, and they knew we knew it. We asked them and they said they were using it to build Nuclear Power Plants (Which is bull, of course). Kerry said “O rly? Well then tell you what, let us help you with that, we’ll provide the uranium and oversee the means by which you apply it to these plants. Otherwise it could look like youre making motions to threaten the US.” That was his plan. Not, as Mike would like you to believe “Hi mr Terrorist who I love like a brother and have much teh gay buttsex with! Take the Uranium please and blow us all to the smithereens!” but rather “You want us to believe its cool? then let us help, let us watch, let us oversee, and let us make sure you dont try anything funny with us.”
   More Here
   The funny thing about Mike bringing it up though is that early this year, Bush endorsed the same damn plan.
   NY Sun: Bush’s Iran Plan Echoes Kerry, Baffles Friends

8. 8 Duros62
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 11:39 am

   I tell you what, Rex, with stuff like that going on, we should start seeing some conservative moonbat’s heads exploding sometime in mid-October.

9. 9 Duros62
   Aug 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pm

   Well, that sucks. From the link, “This video no longer available.”
   Wonder why?

10. 10 SaveFarris
    Aug 16th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    A slight correction to Rex’s version. From JK’s website:

    John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

    So … if we give Iran nuclear fuel and they don’t give it back, then we’ll know what their intentions are.

    John Kerry: Sooopah Genius!

11. 11 Rex Mundane
    Aug 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pm

    Oh for chrissake of course it would be supervised to dumb shit, and other such specifics would be worked out to make sure that we werent just outright giving them something they could use to destroy america. Honestly how fucking stupid do you need to believe we all are that we’ll accept your twisting words around like that? And no response on how, if at all this differs from Bushs nigh identical plan, which by your logic makes Bush as Sooopah Genius as Kerry. God, seriously, please go and dig a hole somewhere to bury your head in so we can all kick your ass, alright?

12. 12 SaveFarris
    Aug 16th, 2006 at 4:24 pm

    Supervised?!? Kinda like the Lebanon supervised the disarmament of Hezzbollah in the 1990s, I guess. Look how well that went.

13. 13 Rex Mundane
    Aug 16th, 2006 at 5:08 pm

    And we have yet another completely unrelated topic! Perhaps this one will finally distract from your inability to form a cogent rebuttal to the pointing out that you have no godsdamn case! Hope against hope, right? Clap for Tinkerbell!
    But then no actually, Because Lebanon should not have been trusted to make sure that Hezbollah disarmed themselves when they were fundamentally taking hold of the country. Much in the same way Bush shouldnt simply implicitly trust for instance the Oil industry to regulate itself since it has a vested interest in affecting what those regulations end up being at the expense of the people. Hooray! Now I’m talking about something not directly related! I win!
    But yeah though, see the thing is that you know it would be watched over to make sure iran didnt try any funny stuff, not just asking that they make sure they dont. You know that the people doing the watching would have the authority and power to make sure they dont. You know that they would make it clear to Iran what the consequences of such dickery would be to make damn damn damn sure they dont. And yet, here you are pretending that Kerry was advocating a policy for the sake of affecting the exact opposite result that the plan would actually generate, namely providing Iran with a weapon they could use against us. You’re delusional, imbecilic, obsessed with the idea that everyone around you must be as ignorant as you are and that any facts that show contrary are lies, and are so far beneath contempt that you have lost even my morbid fascination in fueling your ignorant babble. I’m done.

14. 14 Zython
    Aug 16th, 2006 at 8:05 pm

    Supervised?!? Kinda like the Lebanon supervised the disarmament of Hezzbollah in the 1990s, I guess. Look how well that went.

    So you’re comparing the U.S. to Lebanon now. Nice. Real nice.

    There you have it folks, the Bush administration is purposfully helping Iranian terrorists.

    So now the cons are both pro-terrorism and pro-cancer. How low will you go?

Leave a Reply