[DBursey]

Originally Posted by marden

Show up at Bill Clinton's door, dressed like this, and be ready for the continual cross burning.

LOL! Love the new clan motif!

I have it on reliable source at FOX that Bill Clinton sold drugs to schoolgirls dressed as a nun, prior to seducing them in a presidential orgy of simulated lesbian sex!

What was that thing about GWB - POTUS 43 - having obfuscated his military service record? Do I recall tales of him handing out his mojo to pretty young things while ostensibly flying Nat'l Guard jets?

Or something?

[Spliffdaddy]

6 years after he leaves office and Clinton is *still* not telling the truth.

The ABC docudrama really hurt his legacy. And it should be apparent to even the casual observer that Clinton cares about nothing except public opinion.

In my opinion, any legacy you have to defend is not a legacy at all.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

6 years after he leaves office and Clinton is *still* not telling the truth.

The ABC docudrama really hurt his legacy. And it should be apparent to even the casual observer that Clinton cares about nothing except public opinion.

In my opinion, any legacy you have to defend is not a legacy at all.

Six years after leaving office (and therefore becoming insignificant) and the craziest people are *still* obessed over him.

He says something that changes nothing and you people lose it, Spliffdaddy and Cody Dawg first among equals.

The casual observer doesn't understand this fascination with Clinton. Then again, he doesn't understand the fascination with Elvis either.

People have let JFK go, Nixon and even the most hated Carter. Not Clinton. Never Clinton.

Let's obsess over him and his every word, action and thought... what does it take for the individual Clinton obsesser to become embarrassed and realize that he's just beating his head on a rock. It's bleading already dudes. Brain is leaking..

V

[Spliffdaddy]

Ah, it's no worse than being afflicted by the Bush-bashers obsession.

[D. S. Troyer]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

Ah, it's no worse than being afflicted by the Bush-bashers obsession.

Spliffdaddy Freaks Out!

Have another jar of shine.

[Spliffdaddy]

ain't no shine around here. it all gets sold to yankees.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by NaplesX

If any of them happened in the Oval office, then , yes he was distracted. And who's to say there were only 10. Didn't he wag his finger at the camera and say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"?

He only fess'd up because they had his DNA on the dress. If he was comfortable enough to get a blow-job in the Oval Office, I think it had to have happened many times in many places.

How busy on important stuff was he to say "OK here, take this"

Stop with the excuses.

It's a grand total of 10 according to the Starr report, retard.

I'd venture to say that Clinton was doing less to harm the country by accomplishing nothing with those sexual encounters than Bush is meeting with his political staff devising ways to crack down on our freedoms in the name of "security" each and every day. I'd much rather we had a president who sad in the oval office and did jack **** than one who "got involved" and "took initiative". That just spells trouble for all our freedoms.

[Spliffdaddy]

The problem with having bad judgement is that people then doubt your judgement all the time.

Even if you excuse the Clinton/Lewinsky thing - the side effect was that thereafter anything he did to fight terrorism was met with skepticism. As if he was only doing it to draw attention away from his moment of bad judgement.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with getting a BJ from a chubby intern. Everyone makes mistakes. But to meet that chubby intern *again* is simply inexcuseable. At least from this dogg's point of view. It's a man thing. One of the rules.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The problem with having bad judgement is that people then doubt your judgement all the time.

Even if you excuse the Clinton/Lewinsky thing - the side effect was that thereafter anything he did to fight terrorism was met with skepticism. As if he was only doing it to draw attention away from his moment of bad judgement.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with getting a BJ from a chubby intern. Everyone makes mistakes. But to meet that chubby intern *again* is simply inexcuseable. At least from this dogg's point of view. It's a man thing. One of the rules.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

The problem with having bad judgement is that people then doubt your judgement all the time.

Even if you excuse the Clinton/Lewinsky thing - the side effect was that thereafter anything he did to fight terrorism was met with skepticism. As if he was only doing it to draw attention away from his moment of bad judgement.

In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with getting a BJ from a chubby intern. Everyone makes mistakes. But to meet that chubby intern *again* is simply inexcuseable. At least from this dogg's point of view. It's a man thing. One of the rules.

Funny you don't question Bush's judgement after the drugs, mistake in invading Iraq, the mentioned-in-the-video firing of Richard Clarke, and so on... Or maybe Cheney's hunting incident. There's an example of bad judgement.

Guess it's just a one way street though.

[BushCheney08]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Six years after leaving office (and therefore becoming insignificant) and the craziest people are *still* obessed over him.

He says something that changes nothing and you people lose it, Spliffdaddy and Cody Dawg first among equals.

The casual observer doesn't understand this fascination with Clinton. Then again, he doesn't understand the fascination with Elvis either.

People have let JFK go, Nixon and even the most hated Carter. Not Clinton. Never Clinton.

Let's obsess over him and his every word, action and thought... what does it take for the individual Clinton obsesser to become embarrassed and realize that he's just beating his head on a rock. It's bleading already dudes. Brain is leaking..

V

He was the POTUS. We understand why you want to try to forget the worst POTUS in american history, but that doesn't make it OK. He failed, and the voters showed him that they realized this. The sad part is that he won't admit failure and, as Spliffdaddy pointed out, he's still lying about it.

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

In my opinion, any legacy you have to defend is not a legacy at all.

Right on. The libs just can't accept that Bush will never have to defend his legacy. We found the WMD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now free, prosperus nations. They can't handle that Iraq is already back to being a modern, western country, as afghanistan soon will be.

[D. S. Troyer]

Nut case.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Funny you don't question Bush's judgement after the drugs, mistake in invading Iraq, the mentioned-in-the-video firing of Richard Clarke, and so on... Or maybe Cheney's hunting incident. There's an example of bad judgement.

Guess it's just a one way street though.

Until Spliffdaddy has a chance to answer your post, I'd like to offer my thoughts.

There is no way that we can take seriously the crap sandwich you've built here.

You start with a stale slice of decades old drug allegation, then to give the sandwich a sense of substance you add a flaky layer of 'ignoring the importance and inescapable unanimously heralded decision to invade Iraq.' You pile on a slice of 'Clarke being fired' which is so full of holes it could be swiss cheese and then you top it all off with the crappy use of an unfortunate hunting accident all as a way to do what? Defend Clinton?

Why? So that America might vote for another president like him in 2008 that will do nothing and allow jihad to progress unimpeded?

Why?

By the way...

Richard A. Clarke
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke

Richard A. Clarke (born 1951) provided national security advice to four U.S. presidents: Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, consulting on issues of intelligence and terrorism, from 1973 to 2003. Until his retirement in 2003, Mr. Clarke was a member of the Senior Executive Service.

Clarke's specialties are computer security, counterterrorism and homeland security. He was the counter-terrorism adviser on the U.S. National Security Council when the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred.

He resigned in January of 2003 to work on his book, Against All Enemies, which came out in early 2004. He testified before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States on March 24, 2004.

If you are going to try to get us to swallow your crap you might make an effort to get your facts straight. But to do that would mean the sandwich would be even more flimsy.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Until Spliffdaddy has a chance to answer your post, I'd like to offer my thoughts.

There is no way that we can take seriously the crap sandwich you've built here.

You start with a stale slice of decades old drug allegation, then to give the sandwich a sense of substance you add a flaky layer of 'ignoring the importance and inescapable unanimously heralded decision to invade Iraq.' You pile on a slice of 'Clarke being fired' which is so full of holes it could be swiss cheese and then you top it all off with the crappy use of an unfortunate hunting accident all as a way to do what? Defend Clinton?

Let's figure this out here.

On one side, you have a man who had sex with one of his interns and cheated on his wife. He went on tv and lied to the American public about it. He then apologized.

One the other side, you have a man who drove through every red flag possible to invade a country. He then put the allies of a known terrorist organization that launched massive attacks on 9/11 in power. He then takes our troops out of fighting the forces of said terrorist organization, to help safeguard the new rulers of Iraq, who as I mentioned, are allies of said terrorist organization, and also happen to be allies of another country that may be working on nuclear weapons. This man has apologized for none of this.

And somehow, on your vastly skewed scales, you're really worried about the judgement of person A, but person B is just fine in your book?

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Let's figure this out here.

On one side, you have a man who had sex with one of his interns and cheated on his wife. He went on tv and lied to the American public about it. He then apologized.

One the other side, you have a man who drove through every red flag possible to invade a country. He then put the allies of a known terrorist organization that launched massive attacks on 9/11 in power. He then takes our troops out of fighting the forces of said terrorist organization, to help safeguard the new rulers of Iraq, who as I mentioned, are allies of said terrorist organization, and also happen to be allies of another country that may be working on nuclear weapons. This man has apologized for none of this.

And somehow, on your vastly skewed scales, you're really worried about the judgement of person A, but person B is just fine in your book?

Yes. Let's figure this out here. And let's keep our eyes on the topic at hand. Clinton's performance on the FNC show and his performance in dealing with Islamic terrorism during his tenure as POTUS.

FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS

Bill Clinton: Play It As It Lies
Monday, September 25, 2006
By Ronald A. Cass

Former President Bill Clinton, never one to let truth stand in the way of a good line, has decided to reincarnate himself as our tough, anti-terror president.

The man who ran away from military service and displayed striking contempt for our Armed Forces has now announced that he did more -- and would do more -- to combat Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda than anyone else. In his view, he should be recognized as the best man to fight that enemy.

Speaking to Chris Wallace on FOX News Sunday, Clinton made a bevy of startlingly anti-factual remarks. He announced, for instance, that conservatives had criticized him for obsessing about bin Laden during his presidency -- rather than the truth that he was roundly condemned for doing next to nothing about this serious threat to American security.

Clinton blamed the Bush administration for failing to stop the Al Qaeda terrorists before 9/11, saying that the administration had eight months to get bin Laden and didn't. That conveniently overlooks that Clinton's administration had eight years to do that job, with Al Qaeda using the last two of those years to plan 9/11.

One of Clinton's bigger whoppers was this declaration about the fight against bin Laden: "I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we'd have 20,000 more troops [in Afghanistan] trying to kill him."

The man who was in the Soviet Union demonstrating against the American military during Vietnam, who as president left our Armed Forces short on so many fronts, now is -- in his own 20/20 hindsight -- The Defense President. Now he criticizes the Bush administration for not doing enough, proclaims himself the champion of effective military action, and implies none too subtly that the fight against terrorism would go better if we had a Clinton in the White House instead of a Bush.

This isn't mere spin. It's full-scale invention.

Before anyone starts taking our most recent ex-president too seriously, let's review the bidding. Clinton wasn't the president who ordered the Armed Forces to go after bin Laden without reservation, to get him "dead or alive." He wasn't the one who sent thousands of troops after Al Qaeda and nations that harbor and support terrorists

Instead, President Clinton responded to attacks on our troops in Somalia by withdrawing, and responded to attacks by Al Qaeda on our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya by bombing the aspirin factory of an innocent pharmaceutical firm in Sudan. He reacted to Al Qaeda's bombing of the USS Cole by lobbing a few cruise missiles at empty tents in the desert. He turned down Sudanese offers to cooperate in tracking down and capturing bin Laden.

The bipartisan 9/11 commission concluded that -- far from doing more than anyone to kill the brutal murderer who now is the international face of terrorism -- President Clinton had flatly refused to allow the military or CIA to kill Usama bin Laden. Clinton's instructions were that bin Laden should be taken, if at all, alive not dead. CIA officials reported that this instruction cut the chance of success in half.

That is not to say that the Clinton administration wasn't in a better position to eliminate bin Laden. Evidence before the commission showed that the Clinton administration had live footage of Usama bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan in the Fall of 2000, a year before the 9/11 attacks, but didn't act.

NBC's Tom Brokaw, playing the tape on-air in 2004, noted rightly that this was an enormous opportunity lost. Having gotten bin Laden in your sights isn't something to brag about if you weren't willing to pull the trigger.

Clinton, like all presidents, had some top-notch advisers, including some thoughtful advisers on military and foreign affairs. But he is quintessentially a temporizer, one who always has had difficulty reaching a conclusion and sticking to it, and not someone who was terribly interested in either preserving our military power or using it effectively in world affairs. He'd much rather talk one on one with world leaders, persuaded he could convince them to do what he wanted by the concerted application of charm.

Talk and compromise -- not clear moral principles and the will to do whatever is needed to support them -- were the hallmarks of the Clinton administration, reflecting the person at the top. Nothing Clinton says now can change that, though he still evinces conviction that he can talk us into anything -- just as he thought he could when he denied point blank having had anything to do with Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton always has been the one who, caught in a compromising position, would disarmingly ask, as the parody has it, "what are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" His instinct for lying, even under oath, earned him the second presidential impeachment in American history.

Contrast Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Consider, for example, their different approaches to Yasser Arafat.

The Clintons cozy relationship with the Arafats was symbolized by Mrs. Clinton's embrace of Mrs. Arafat -- on stage immediately after a speech by Mrs. Arafat condemning Israel. President Clinton's relationship, though less picturesque, was no less close. Arafat was the world leader Clinton met with most often. Clinton was certain he could talk Arafat into making peace in the Middle East -- and secure Clinton's legacy. Clinton invited Arafat and Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Barak to the now infamous Camp David summit meeting of 2000. He pressured Barak to offer heroic compromises, only to have Arafat at the last minute turn to intifada to try to get more. In the end, Clinton's charm wasn't enough.

President Bush, in sharp distinction, saw Arafat as a terrorist and refused to meet with him unless he renounced the destruction of Israel as a goal and terror against civilians as a means. Bush, not Clinton, assured Israel of our full support against terrorism and meant it.

Clinton realizes that history's judgments often are shaped as much by what is written in the aftermath of an event as they are by the facts of the event. The Kennedy family relentlessly spun the myth of Camelot to turn a failed presidency into the fantasy of an American Renaissance. Having long modeled himself after JFK (minus the fashionable, universally admired, classy wife), Clinton now seeks to redefine his presidency -- and pave the way for his ultimate revenge: Hillary in office for "Clinton, Act Three."

Presidents often find it hard to leave the stage. The day of Bush's first inauguration, Clinton lingered for hours at Andrews Air Force base trying to hang on to the attention he had so enjoyed as president. He still seeks the limelight.

But desperation to be noticed after leaving office, to have the respect and affection Clinton craves, isn't a substitute for doing the right thing when in office -- any more than lies are a substitute for honesty, or indecision a suitable alternative to moral courage.

On the golf course, Bill Clinton is known for his dislike of playing his ball where it lies, scoring honestly, and taking his lumps as the rest of us duffers must. He makes his own score, always a good deal better than the real number.

Someone else should be trusted to do the scoring when it comes to Clinton's time in office. In the history books, he deserves to be counted as the President who did not protect us against Al Qaeda, who left the impression they could attack us without penalty, whose wasted opportunities contributed to the travesty of 9/11.

Tough talk now should not be allowed to obscure that fact. Lies now should not go unanswered.

FOXNews.com - Bill Clinton: Play It As It Lies - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

And yes, this is a Fox News Article. So read this as well to get a sense of perspective.

In the Issue: Byron York on Clinton on National Review Online

Clinton Has No Clothes
What 9/11 revealed about the ex-president.
National Review
By Byron York, NR White House Correspondent
From the December 17, 2001, issue of National Review

 

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

Yes. Let's figure this out here. And let's keep our eyes on the topic at hand. Clinton's performance on the FNC show and his performance in dealing with Islamic terrorism during his tenure as POTUS.



And yes, this is a Fox News Article. So read this as well to get a sense of perspective.

You're doing a great job of not answering my question and posting a lot of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying, and is most likely stuff I already know the right thinks is important but really isn't, and still has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

You're doing a great job of not answering my question and posting a lot of stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying, and is most likely stuff I already know the right thinks is important but really isn't, and still has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

The only 'dog' I have in this race is that Clinton should have and could have done more to deal with terrorism and because he didn't we had 9/11.

Spliffdaddy was pointing out that the former president lied and his judgment should be questioned and he should not be believed.

You are trying to defend the former President and I DON'T CARE about what he says to re-invent history. We've got it in B&W what he did and didn't do or say. Everything else is irrelevant, IMO.

[BushCheney08]

The fact is, as marden showed you, everyone from fox (not afraid to say it like it is!) all the way to the national review is able to see right through clinton's bs. Maybe the far left media like CBS, ABC, NBC, NYT, and CNN won't say it, but everyone else will.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by marden

The only 'dog' I have in this race is that Clinton should have and could have done more to deal with terrorism and because he didn't we had 9/11.

Spliffdaddy was pointing out that the former president lied and his judgment should be questioned and he should not be believed.

You are trying to defend the former President and I DON'T CARE about what he says to re-invent history. We've got it in B&W what he did and didn't do or say. Everything else is irrelevant, IMO.

Again, you're not answering my question. If you want to defend Spliff, then by all means do it. According to the "record" so far, the only ones trying to re-invent history is the right. Bill Clinton is perfectly right, because you know what, I remember hearing what the Right had to say at the time with my own two ears. When he was in Somalia, the right whined about that. When Clinton was trying to kill OBL, the Right whined about that and said OBL wasn't a threat. I remember the right saying so at the time. This almost makes me wonder how old you are to not remember hearing those things at the time.

Look, if you're going to defend what I had to say about Spliff's judgement quote, then defend it. So far, you haven't, you quote unrelated stuff which has nothing to do with what I said, and really, in true Fox news style, is somewhat unrelated to the topic. All you're doing so far is helping out my post count, not that I'm complaining.

[marden]

Originally Posted by goMac

Again, you're not answering my question. If you want to defend Spliff, then by all means do it. According to the "record" so far, the only ones trying to re-invent history is the right. Bill Clinton is perfectly right, because you know what, I remember hearing what the Right had to say at the time with my own two ears. When he was in Somalia, the right whined about that. When Clinton was trying to kill OBL, the Right whined about that and said OBL wasn't a threat. I remember the right saying so at the time. This almost makes me wonder how old you are to not remember hearing those things at the time.

Look, if you're going to defend what I had to say about Spliff's judgement quote, then defend it. So far, you haven't, you quote unrelated stuff which has nothing to do with what I said, and really, in true Fox news style, is somewhat unrelated to the topic. All you're doing so far is helping out my post count, not that I'm complaining.

What is your question?

You are trying to MAKE me care about something that by your own admission has nothing to do with the thread topic. You are off topic and are trying to get me to help validate your derailleur?

Ok, here goes, as I try to stay on topic AND answer at least some part of your post.

Originally Posted by goMac

When he was in Somalia, the right whined about that. When Clinton was trying to kill OBL, the Right whined about that and said OBL wasn't a threat. I remember the right saying so at the time. This almost makes me wonder how old you are to not remember hearing those things at the time.

I think you have pinpointed the problem many Americans have with the former president. He was so busy trying to make the people happy that he failed to LEAD.

The right complained and it threw him off his game? The right criticized and that made him fail to do his job?

On one hand I could cite that as justification for Bush not having a perfect performance record...the left was bashing him! But that isn't what the current President would want in my opinion and it isn't true that criticism is making him ineffective against terrorism.

For all of President Clintons smarts and charm he had a few of character flaws that we are paying for today. He wanted attention and approval. He will do or say anything to avoid taking responsibility for screw ups. He was reluctant to make use of the military as a necessary tool of government. And when he did he did so ineffectively except for Bosnia, which was a stunning success, IMO. (Never before had air power ALONE been able to stop hostilities between two modern military forces.)

He "lead" by popularity polls. He flip flopped. And so the presence of criticism would naturally affect him. On the other hand, President Bush understands what needs to be done and has the backbone to do the difficult job and to persevere in the face of stiff challenges despite the terrible criticism he's been subjected to. If he had been less of a man that criticism probably would have prevented his keeping the pressure on terrorists and keeping America running and in business and safe from second attacks since 911.

Many of us heard the criticism at the time and many of us thought back to the first few years of the Reagan administration when the Air Traffic Controllers illegally went on strike and when they failed to return to work, he fired their asses. Oh, you should have heard the complaints. Then there was his economic program. Oh my God! It was doom and gloom in America every single day and ALL the economic indicators were just dismal and the lower income sectors of society were being hurt the most and they screamed and their advocates screamed.

Dutch stayed the course. And then one day it started getting better and then better and well, the rest is history.

That's what a leader does. He leads.

Clinton followed. He followed what the people were telling him they wanted.

There is a thin line between following the will of the people and being enslaved by their whims.

[BlackGriffen]

For those of you who are sick of beating your heads against the wall of nutjobs who are willing to throw everything down the memory hole at a moment's notice, I would recommend this book. It explains, in laymen's terms, some of the findings of the decades following world war two in the research into how the heck the Nazis could possibly come to power. The short answer: some people are literally sheeple - they have a seemingly infinite capacity to shunt reality aside because their Leader and Protector, and by extension they, are Right (authoritarian personality); some people have a moral compass made of wood - all they care about is having power over other people (Social Dominance Orientation); and some really frightening sick-os are both (Dean calls them "Double Highs").

Here's hoping that they can be brought down peaceably at the ballot box.

Edit to Add: for more fun, here's a checklist of personality traits of Nutjobs.

[Nicko]

Don't forget;

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by DBursey

Where have the rational folks at MacNN gone? I understand victorian America's phobia regarding sex, but wtf is with all these 'heretic' comments?

Bill Clinton was admired and respected throughout the modern world. You Bible-belters should recognise that, and if nothing else, realize the rest of the world thinks you're ass-backward for the continual cross-burning at his door.

That would be a Spanish guy calling everyone heretics. NOT a bible-belter.

[Cody Dawg]

I just love how people bring Iraq up over and over again...those are the same people who cannot seem to think coherent thoughts and they are grasping at straws and forgetting that Americans are united in this war for the most part. You have a few Hollywood elitist liberals who happen to be able to make the headlines because of their celebrity and suddenly the world thinks that they represent the views of the United States citizenry and let me tell you something, it ain't true. Most Americans know that we stand alone and united. Wars are never popular - pick any war and go back and read the headlines and you'll see what I'm saying - but in hindsight all Americans agree that it was for the best.

As another example of our united stance, when Chavez insulted our president prominent liberals/Democrats stood up in defense of Bush and our country. Why? Because although we Americans may disagree about certain things, we are, for the most part, united in spirit on most matters deep down, even though on the surface we may disagree. TRUE Americans are united that is.

First of all, the United States needed to be in Iraq because a dictator was in control. Remember, there was the first Gulf War and it wasn't finished. We had problems 20 years earlier.

Secondly, we needed to be there because it makes spying on would-be terrorists easier.

Thirdly, the ENTIRE WORLD supported the United States going into Iraq, remember? Remember all of the nations that sent troops?

So, you fuzzy-brained liberals (to use Abe's sentiment) are the following:

1. Heartless because you could care less about the people being tortured in grisly ways by Saddam & Sons and their henchmen

2. Unpatriotic if you're Americans because how can anyone "forget" 9/11 and if you're not Americans then stupid because you don't understand that the United States took the war on terror OUT of our country - which is one of the smartest things that could have happened and will be Bush's legacy. If you want to point to a single strategy of brilliance, it was making the "shores" of our country Iraq instead of here in North America

3. Liberals and anti-Americans are just ignorant when they conveniently forget that the war on terror is not just our war...it's everyone's war. Even for fellow Muslims. Bin Laden recently declared a Jihad on other Middle Eastern countries because of his warped views of their lack of action when it came to uniting Muslims.

So, I think I've said it all, but one thing you can be sure of: We're not losing more innocent civilians in our country - NONE - because of Bush.

Clinton can say what he wants, but Condi Rice said it best: HE IS A LIAR.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by voodoo

If I were an American citizen, I'd have become a Republican *years* ago!

(or lived in the US, or cared about US domestic bullcrap..)

V

You are obsessed with the USA aren't you?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I just love how people bring Iraq up over and over again...those are the same people who cannot seem to think coherent thoughts and they are grasping at straws and forgetting that Americans are united in this war for the most part. You have a few Hollywood elitist liberals who happen to be able to make the headlines because of their celebrity and suddenly the world thinks that they represent the views of the United States citizenry and let me tell you something, it ain't true. Most Americans know that we stand alone and united. Wars are never popular - pick any war and go back and read the headlines and you'll see what I'm saying - but in hindsight all Americans agree that it was for the best.

Most Americans are now not for the war, the polls clearly illustrate this well beyond the margin of error you need to account for with polls.

First of all, the United States needed to be in Iraq because a dictator was in control. Remember, there was the first Gulf War and it wasn't finished. We had problems 20 years earlier.

There are dictators in control in many countries around the world that are likewise not a threat to us. This doesn't add up.

Secondly, we needed to be there because it makes spying on would-be terrorists easier.

Not following your thought process here. Could you make this argument clearer?

Thirdly, the ENTIRE WORLD supported the United States going into Iraq, remember? Remember all of the nations that sent troops?

What planet do you live in Cody? Really...

The countries that supported the war were the UK, Australia, and Poland. Do you remember the "coalition of the willing"? Do you read anything outside of your normal reading routine that might suggest that the rest of the world is terribly upset with us right now?

1. Heartless because you could care less about the people being tortured in grisly ways by Saddam & Sons and their henchmen

We could care less, yes, that's possible.

I also care about what goes on in Darfur, North Korea, and other countries where there are oppressive dictators. Unfortunately, it isn't practical to just install new leaders in this country just so that we'll feel better.

2. Unpatriotic if you're Americans because how can anyone "forget" 9/11 and if you're not Americans then stupid because you don't understand that the United States took the war on terror OUT of our country - which is one of the smartest things that could have happened and will be Bush's legacy. If you want to point to a single strategy of brilliance, it was making the "shores" of our country Iraq instead of here in North America

This is a stupid statement. I'm not touching this one other than to say that dissent is not unpatriotic, and many (rightfully so) feel that the Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11. What evidence do you use to suggest otherwise? Whatever you do use, even Bush himself would admit that Iraq/Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.

3. Liberals and anti-Americans are just ignorant when they conveniently forget that the war on terror is not just our war...it's everyone's war. Even for fellow Muslims. Bin Laden recently declared a Jihad on other Middle Eastern countries because of his warped views of their lack of action when it came to uniting Muslims.

You are missing the point. The questions being asked by the Liberal community are questions dealing with where lines are drawn, how this war is fought, and how many resources to allocate to the problem in light of the fact that it cannot be won.

We aren't unpatriotic. We aren't ignorant.

Clinton can say what he wants, but Condi Rice said it best: HE IS A LIAR.

Please substantiate your claims so that we can have something real to talk about. Thanks!


Cody, your arguments and debate style need work...

[Cody Dawg]

1. "Polls" do not represent "most" Americans. Where was the poll taken? Internet users only? Telephone? Who called them? Don't cite polls unless you can be specific about the particulars.
What's that old adage? "78% of statistics are made up on the spot."

2. Saddam was a dictator extraordinaire and a menace not only to his own people, but the entire Middle East. Do you honestly think that the U.S. went into Iraq without the blessing of most Middle Eastern countries? PUH-leeze.

3. Yes, many countries sent troops. Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and many other countries sent troops to assist in the Iraq invasion. It was a worldwide effort. Surprised you don't remember that.

4. The "rest of the world is terribly upset with us?" WHO would that be? The Dixie Chicks? Susan Sarandon? The Democrats?

5. Oh, come ON, besson3c (didn't forget the "3c" by the way). You have not had ONE THREAD in defense of the United States. Not one. I've got a great idea: I'll start a Paypal account and let's all chip in and buy besson3c a one-way ticket out of the United States. He HATES our country so much, let's help him move out! Seriously, knowing MacNStein, he'd pitch in $10,000 like he once offered someone else for the same reason.

6. No, YOUR debate style needs work. Remember when you attacked me and called me names the other day?

I won't forget that - don't try to pretend that you're interested in being moderate and reasonable.

The fact is that you hate the United States yet you live here and enjoy the privileges of being here. I'll say it again: MOVE OUT. Or, show us ONE THREAD where you state how proud you are of our country and it's benefits and privileges. ONE.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

So, I think I've said it all, but one thing you can be sure of: We're not losing more innocent civilians in our country - NONE - because of Bush.

[Dakar]

God, don't support a war of luxury and people tell you should move out of the country. Get a grip.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Dakar

God, don't support a war of luxury and people tell you should move out of the country. Get a grip.

Dude, you're a terrorist. Call the CIA and turn yourself in!

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Railroader

That would be a Spanish guy calling everyone heretics. NOT a bible-belter.

Thank you Railroader. Had Clinton been sufficiently in touch with the American people he would've known not to lie to a Federal grand jury. Having sexual relations with an intern is forgivable. Believing you're above the judicial principles of this country is not forgivable. This calls your knowledge of the American people into question and it calls into question your degree of narcissism. There are aspects of Clinton's Administration that I appreciated and aspects of his Administration I did not appreciate. Just as there are aspects of Bush's Administration I appreciate and those I do not. Segue...

Iraq was not about Iraq. It was never about Iraq. It's about the Middle East. You may believe the Iraqi people are owed an apology for hosting the staging ground for drawing and thinning out terrorism and there may also be a thank you in order for the ushering in of democracy. The thank you may come from those in Iran seeking reform as I understand, the majority of them. The conditions of the Middle East were not showing signs of waning, they were showing signs of waxing. There was no indication that the conditions of the Middle East were going to remain in the Middle East and eventually be diminished. US policy did not cause terrorism, terrorism caused US policy. A flawed policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." However, It should be noted that there is no perfect foreign action, there is only inaction. Inaction due to failed economic sanctions no "humanitarian" should take credit for. Inaction due to Isolationism which has proven dismal foreign policy historically and "talks" that only serve to separate who is willing to adhere to them and who is not. There are small infractions to "talks" such as our actions in Gitmo and there are flagrant infractions such as N. Korea's nuclear ambitions post-Clinton agreements. Saddam's non-compliance through 12 years and 13 resolutions of tough talk and economic sanctions may be another example of inaction. These approaches failed. Saddam was as duped by his henchmen as the numerous intelligence sources involved in the indictments against him. His goal was to remain a formidable opponent to Iran and the last thing we wanted were two entities becoming more formidable in light of their mutual desire to bring about the end of American interests, including a wholly anti-semitic goal of Jewish genocide.

All are imperialistic and all have a different ideal of the perfect world. This world will come to a head of ideals. There is one particular system of government while flawed, that offers the best beacon of hope. If you're not growing, you're dying. Those kept in the dark cannot see this beacon and the region was only growing darker. We are attempting to bring this torch into the center of the Middle East where those who want it will know it when they see it, and will want it. How badly? This is the great ambiguity. No one can guess. Voter turnout in Iraq in light of the risks involved at the polling places is one indication of how bad they want it, but taking up arms against your oppressor is another issue entirely. You can say this makes the US evil and President Bush the host of hell, but then we really don't have a good example of good and righteous for a contrast do we?

Bill Clinton has cause for freaking out, but it's a little too late for that now. He also warned of the threats Saddam posed when he was in office and while the right is quick to forget it's own stance on Osama, many seem too quick to forget Clinton's stance on Saddam... and Social Security for that matter.

Clinton said so himself; both sides of the aisle, "right-wingers" and "left-wingers" want the exact same thing. They just have different ideals on how to accomplish it.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by BushCheney08

He was the POTUS. We understand why you want to try to forget the worst POTUS in american history, but that doesn't make it OK. He failed, and the voters showed him that they realized this. The sad part is that he won't admit failure and, as Spliffdaddy pointed out, he's still lying about it.

More accounts aberdeen? Oh well. You don't understand anything. Personal projection is all you can do, and with your limited mind you fail. Of course.

You're wrong about the sad part. The sad part is seeing persons still talk about Clinton and get all upset. Is it any wonder people look at americans and think 'omg they're retards!'

duuu clintonn bhaaaad duuuuuh /retarded american

Originally Posted by BushCheney08

Right on. The libs just can't accept that Bush will never have to defend his legacy. We found the WMD, Iraq and Afghanistan are now free, prosperus nations. They can't handle that Iraq is already back to being a modern, western country, as afghanistan soon will be.

@ the drivel you just posted.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

That would be a Spanish guy calling everyone heretics. NOT a bible-belter.

Regardless this just shows how DBursey isn't reading the posts that contain religious referance, holds his sensitive atheist nose up, and asks what happened to all the sensible MacNN'ers.

To that I ask: were they ever here?

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are obsessed with the USA aren't you?

Oh no, you totally saw through me.



..perhaps it is because most of you narrowminded retards would rather watch paint dry than talk about anything that doesn't involve the USA. I'm just making conversation.

When was the last time you talked about anything that didn't concern the USA in any way?

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

1. "Polls" do not represent "most" Americans. Where was the poll taken? Internet users only? Telephone? Who called them? Don't cite polls unless you can be specific about the particulars.
What's that old adage? "78% of statistics are made up on the spot."

Trite. Old adage? Is this an essay in third grade? Don't use cliches to make a point, they don't make you look smart. They make you look cliched.

Other than that I agree with the above, polls are pretty worthless most of the time.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

2. Saddam was a dictator extraordinaire and a menace not only to his own people, but the entire Middle East. Do you honestly think that the U.S. went into Iraq without the blessing of most Middle Eastern countries? PUH-leeze.

Saddam was a dictator normale. There was nothing extraordinare about him. He was, like all dictators, a menace to his own people but nothing more. That was very well established after the first Gulf war in '91. Iraq was contained and could never become a threat to its neighbours again.

Of course the US went in without the consent of most Middle East nations.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

3. Yes, many countries sent troops. Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, and many other countries sent troops to assist in the Iraq invasion. It was a worldwide effort. Surprised you don't remember that.

And Palau. Spain withdrew her troops as soon as there was a sane man running the country again. It was far from a worldwide effort. A handful of countries supported the COW (coalition of the willing), many dropped out and in reality only the US and to an extent the UK were the actual COW.

All other countries had 200 troops or less.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

4. The "rest of the world is terribly upset with us?" WHO would that be? The Dixie Chicks? Susan Sarandon? The Democrats?

No, you retardness. It was cute the first few months, then it became offensive. The rest of the world means people from all over the world. A true coalition of the world. I dare ya, pick a country, go there and ask any person what he/she thinks of the US today. I guarantee you'll justify their answer with some retardness like "they're just jealous".

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

6. No, YOUR debate style needs work. Remember when you attacked me and called me names the other day?

You're just repeating lies, talking-points and acting like brainwashed sheeple. I think those are the major flaws in your writing style.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

blah blah

ebuddy here could use an editor.

the difference between him and aberdeenwriter is that he seems to write his word-diarrheas by himself, while aberdeenwriter just copy/pastes his.

the wordiest heretic.

V

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

To that I ask: were they ever here? V

No. Of course they're among the other 10+% unemployed in Spain enjoying a San Miguel on the backs of the EU.

[Dakar]

Christ, Voodoo, you've got a serious chip on your shoulder lately. I wouldn't expect to last too long around here if you keep it up.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No. Of course they're among the other 10+% unemployed in Spain enjoying a San Miguel on the backs of the EU.

A dry bread with sand on it. A short description of you sense of humor.

Keep it up though, it is far more enjoyable that the essays.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dakar

Christ, Voodoo, you've got a serious chip on your shoulder lately. I wouldn't expect to last too long around here if you keep it up.

Meh I've lasted here since early 2001 Dakar, same person, same posts. I've never been a fan of the super-america ceneterd POVs of some people here. This is an international forum, though most posters are probably american.

V

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

ebuddy here could use an editor.

the difference between him and aberdeenwriter is that he seems to write his word-diarrheas by himself, while aberdeenwriter just copy/pastes his.

the wordiest heretic.

V

I take it you have an issue with my post? The thread is; "Bill Clinton freaks out". Do you have something to add to the conversation?

We know you can spell "heretic" already V, got anything else at all???

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Oh no, you totally saw through me.

[IMG]http://www.jamesfaqs.com/Morans.jpg[IMG]

..perhaps it is because most of you narrowminded retards would rather watch paint dry than talk about anything that doesn't involve the USA. I'm just making conversation.

When was the last time you talked about anything that didn't concern the USA in any way?

V

Nope, I simply peeked at your surface. You certainly seem obsessed about the USA. You are on a forum based in the USA. You are speaking the language of the USA. You are commenting about USA citizens on a USA based forum in the language of the USA. Do other people in your country do these things? Doesn't this point towards an obsession of the USA? Maybe you can't see past your obsession.

Wouldn't you say I was obsessed with Spain if I were on a Spanish based forum, speaking Spanish, commenting about Spanish citizens, and discussing Spanish concerns?

I call a duck a duck if it quacks.

[Dakar]

For some reason I didn't notice you calling posters retards and the somewhat vicious tone to your posts till now. Maybe you're right, and the mods are used to it.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

A dry bread with sand on it. A short description of you sense of humor.

Keep it up though, it is far more enjoyable that the essays.

V

i.e. you've been rendered speechless. Which is really all I wanted to illustrate.

again.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by voodoo

A dry bread with sand on it. A short description of you sense of humor.

Keep it up though, it is far more enjoyable that the essays.

V

I hired the editor you recommended. This is what he came up with;

A dry bread with sand on it. *you could have used; "a popcorn fart" for more comedic value. I've given you a short description of your sense of humor.

Keep it up though, it is far more enjoyable than the essays.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Nope, I simply peeked at your surface. You certainly seem obsessed about the USA. You are on a forum based in the USA.

The forum has to be based somewhere. Are you trying to show insight here..? I'm not sure you want to go down that road. Your version of insight is like throwing sledgehammers in a porcelain shop.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are speaking the language of the USA.

Wow. You're good! You noticed. What other countries speak this language of the USA. Why don't you go to the UK and ask them why they're so obsessed over the US, that they insist on talking their language?

Also, English (as the US language is called for some weird reason) is my fifth fluent language and yet, that's the only language you people understand here. That is perhaps the reason I'm speaking it here.. but I have four others that I call my own.

Originally Posted by Railroader

You are commenting about USA citizens on a USA based forum in the language of the USA.

It's not like you dumbasses would understand criticism in another language than English (the language of the USA).. <sigh>

Originally Posted by Railroader

Do other people in your country do these things?

Post on forums, err I think I can say 'yes' with a considerable degree of certainty. Some even on forums based in the USA where people speak the language of the USA. Do you realize that if I didn't explicitly state from where I am, you'd probably think I was just some guy from the US. Isn't that sad.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Doesn't this point towards an obsession of the USA?

The US butted in and took my country to a war her people didn't want. We're not about to forgive that anytime soon nor apologists of that action. Your crap administration did a very bad thing to our nation.

Originally Posted by Railroader

Maybe you can't see past your obsession.

Maybe you're full of cliches as well. What is there supposedly past my obsession, something that I can't see. This is your chance of showing how much insight you have!

Originally Posted by Railroader

Wouldn't you say I was obsessed with Spain if I were on a Spanish based forum, speaking Spanish, commenting about Spanish citizens, and discussing Spanish concerns?

No, not at all. I'd say you were very interested in Spain and rightfully so. It is a beautiful country! I'd also be impressed how well you speak Spanish, because Americans aren't really known for their linguistic skills.

I'd be very interested to hear an outsider's view on Spain and Spanish citizens. That is very valuable, because the only thing that we are easily blinded to are the things we take for granted.

Originally Posted by Railroader

I call a duck a duck if it quacks.

So did I when I called you a.. well you know what I called you

V

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I hired the editor you recommended. This is what he came up with;

Two smackdowns, one thread. It doesn't get any better than this!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

i.e. you've been rendered speechless. Which is really all I wanted to illustrate.

again.

No not really, I just didn't have the time nor the inclination to read your essay. If I had, I probably couldn't have been bothered to comment on it. Just more spinning on Saddam, by the looks of it.

Nothing to add, you've managed to get back to HQ for another brainwash and I'd have to start at square one. The most powerful thing about brainwashed communities is the support they get.

When their bullcrap has been challenged they just go back to the community that spawned them and get a reaffirmination of their trripe.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

I hired the editor you recommended. This is what he came up with;

Hey your editor is pretty good at catching misspellings.. however I think the 'popcorn fart' thing is far too local. It doesn't translate well and I guess if you don't eat a lot of popcorn, you'd never get it.

Still, D+ for effort! Keep it up

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Dakar

For some reason I didn't notice you calling posters retards and the somewhat vicious tone to your posts till now. Maybe you're right, and the mods are used to it.

They'd only seem vicious to people who belong to the cults of Evangelists, Babtists or Pentacostals.

V