Exactly. Luck.

 

no. not at all. to get by, you make up scenarios & say things would be different "if" they happened in your made up scenario.

The problem is we're dealing with the reality of taking action & not crying a river of blame.

it's not luck. we're doing it over and over.

• Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

• Success is simply a matter of luck. Ask any failure.

 

Now you're just being contrary for the sake of, well, being contrary.

I say the people of the US were well off (lucky) because they had just the English to deal with, instead of half of Europe, contrary to different uprisings in Europe itself, where the people had more to deal with than just one nation...

I used 'luck' as in 'good fortune'...

I didn't make up any scenarios, it's you who search things that aren't there...

 

you posted this imaginary scenario 5 posts before. an hour earlier.

you have no short term memory AND a wild imagination.

are these your coping strategies?

 

Sorry for taking so long to answering you, college is taking over my life. But here is something you should think about. Did the Republicans blame Clinton for 9/11 before or after Clinton admitting that he failed on getting bin Laden?

Because Bill Clinton said the following on Larry King Live.

"I thought that my virtual obsession with him was well placed, and I was full of regret that I didn't get him," he said.

So what date exactly did the Republicans start blaming Clinton? And if Clinton admitted to failing on getting bin Laden, would that not mean that he partially caused 9/11? Because the Democrats are blaming Bush as well. And it has been shown that both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball.

 

I don't know the percentage, but I submit that the people lucky enough not to have been screwed by the U.S. health care system, and who therefore think there's nothing wrong with it, are delusional.

 

Only when Osama Bin Laden has something to do with 9/11...

 

You're close to a delusional fool, you know that? I have made comparisons and included a 'what if' into a response, of which you make something that isn't there... so fuck off RR

 

easy Jimmy JumpToConclusions. :excited:

I only had to go back one hour to refute your claim of not making up scenarios.

feel free to look back further.

 

Quit sniffing the white lines 'round your local football-field, RR. You haven't got a clue what you're on about... besides, it was a little in-between chit-chat between me and FoeOfTheLance, the latter seeing no point to disagree with what I replied to him, making you a wannabe Sherlock who just failed miserably out of zealous zest to pin something on me that was born out of your own fevered imagination.

 

Who is Martha Coakley, no surprise she lost. Gotta choose the right candidate to win, if you choose someone without charisma they will lose. But you have to live and learn. Congrats to scott brown, he had more juice than coakley.