The only things Clinton killed as a result of a lie to Congress were a few spilled sperm cells. (Bet all of you bible-thumpers are gonna quote Genesis 38 on that one as proof that Clinton should be struck down.)
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by blocking humanitarian aid to Iraq.
But those aren't Americans.
Oh, and ignoring the build-up to the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans.
But those aren't Americans, either.
Bill never hurt a soul.
---
stupider:
Quote:
If you're going to speculate on Bush's motives don't take it personally and get pissy when I respond.
I am not speculating on motives. I am telling you about a stated goal. You see there's a difference between speculating on internal motivations and relaying stated goals.
I am not speculating on motives. I am telling you about a stated goal. You see there's a difference between speculating on internal motivations and relaying stated goals.
One is stated, the other is not.
I'll give you a minute to figure it out.
I don't need a minute, I already know that you were speculating on Bush's internal motivations...
Quote:
...I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people...
Sorry, but if my memory is right Clinton was never impeached (even if Kenneth Starr tried to do it), nor even Nixon who leave the job before his impeachment (to avoid this disgrace).
impeachment is the act of congress 'looking into' booting the president. actually being booted isn't impeachment.
I say the US invasion will be and is for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
As far as the Bush administrations rationale goes I really don't care. It's beside the point. Oil, dead babies, kindness... whatever the motivation is I don't really care. The end result is a HUGE positive for the people of Iraq.
To me, life on the ground in Iraq is more important than the innerworkings of the Bush administration. Figuring out what the "motivation" is is impossible and circular. "
This is what is wrong with the conservative argument. Let's not worry why we are over there. Let's just get on that bandwagon of blood and not even give it a second's thought because Dubbya says it's a good thing.
By the way it's your right as an American citizen to know why the president does things. We elected him, ( well not really in this case ) we pay his salary, he works for us. If he's not following our wishes we have a right to know. In effect we hired him to run the country. Looking at it any way else turns this into something other than a democracy.
PS. Clinton wasn't actually impeached. He admitted his wrong doing before that was finished. Nixon's crime was one hundred times worse. And he's stated he'd do it again because he thought he was doing the right thing. In case you don't remember that was breaking and entering to gain insider info and influence the outcome of a presidential campaign.
Motivations are like opinions. He can tell everyone else that he is motivated by one thing, while really being motivated by another, and no one would know the difference.
Please paraphrase so I can understand what you meant to convey by this. (edit: without of course speculating on motives, which is apparently verboten)
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
In this particular context, I was attempting to draw a line between stated goals and motivation. By saying "I wouldn't say..." I was telling the person reading that I was not attempting to explain that Bush's internal motivations matched the stated goals.
The goals that were stated openly and loudly and constantly.
Do the stated goals match the inner motivation? I don't know. I wouldn't say.
----
jimmac:
Quote:
This is what is wrong with the conservative argument.
Conservative?
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and probably won't vote for him in 2004.
Pro-war = conservative Republican, eh? heh
Quote:
Let's not worry why we are over there.
Ok.
Quote:
By the way it's your right as an American citizen to know why the president does things. We elected him, ( well not really in this case ) we pay his salary, he works for us. If he's not following our wishes we have a right to know. In effect we hired him to run the country. Looking at it any way else turns this into something other than a democracy.
Bush has said that he sent troops in to disarm Hussein and remove him from power. Those are, apparently, his reasons.
Do you honestly think it's worthwhile for the president to start addressing conspiracy theories about his oil buddies and his desire to rule the world? Do you not think these questions are addressed constantly by Fliescher in those entertaining press conferences they hold *every day*?
What you're asking for here is for ME or some other poster on an internet message board to explain it to you. Do you even realize how pointless that is? That you'll distract from other, more valid conversation to make a demand of the presidential administration.
You're going to have your speculation no matter what anyone says. So have it. Don't address it to me because I don't care.
I honestly don't care about his motivation because I don't see it as too terribly sinister. I work on the assumption that Bush doesn't have a maniacal bloodlust or imperialist goals (he's got 5 more years max as president, don't forget that). Those are two motivations that would get me in the streets with "Bush is a Bastard" signs.
Is he working to protect American corporations? Even if that is his motivation it doesn't matter to me in the end because (1) the net positive of helping the people of Iraq outweighs the possible negative of that (and I'm not entirely sure what that negative is) and (2) protecting American corporations helps our economy and it's good for me.
If we were going into an otherwise-peaceful nation to take over oil fields you would hear a different tune from me. But we aren't.
You guys just aren't thinking this through.
Quote:
PS. Clinton wasn't actually empeached. He admitted his wrong doing before that was finished. Nixon's crime was one hundred times worse. And he's stated he'd do it again because he thought he was doing the right thing. In case you don't remember that was breaking and entering to rig a presidential campaign.
Clinton was impeached.
That's reality.
That's fact.
William Jefferson Clinton was impeached as President of the United States.
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
In this particular context, I was attempting to draw a line between stated goals and motivation. By saying "I wouldn't say..." I was telling the person reading that I was not attempting to explain that Bush's internal motivations matched the stated goals.
The goals that were stated openly and loudly and constantly.
Do the stated goals match the inner motivation? I don't know. I wouldn't say.
----
jimmac:
Conservative?
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and probably won't vote for him in 2004.
Pro-war = conservative Republican, eh? heh
Ok.
Bush has said that he sent troops in to disarm Hussein and remove him from power. Those are, apparently, his reasons.
Do you honestly think it's worthwhile for the president to start addressing conspiracy theories about his oil buddies and his desire to rule the world? Do you not think these questions are addressed constantly by Fliescher in those entertaining press conferences they hold *every day*?
What you're asking for here is for ME or some other poster on an internet message board to explain it to you. Do you even realize how pointless that is? That you'll distract from other, more valid conversation to make a demand of the presidential administration.
You're going to have your speculation no matter what anyone says. So have it. Don't address it to me because I don't care.
I honestly don't care about his motivation because I don't see it as too terribly sinister. I work on the assumption that Bush doesn't have a maniacal bloodlust or imperialist goals (he's got 5 more years max as president, don't forget that). Those are two motivations that would get me in the streets with "Bush is a Bastard" signs.
Is he working to protect American corporations? Even if that is his motivation it doesn't matter to me in the end because (1) the net positive of helping the people of Iraq outweighs the possible negative of that (and I'm not entirely sure what that negative is) and (2) protecting American corporations helps our economy and it's good for me.
If we were going into an otherwise-peaceful nation to take over oil fields you would hear a different tune from me. But we aren't.
You guys just aren't thinking this through.
Clinton was impeached.
That's reality.
That's fact.
William Jefferson Clinton was impeached as President of the United States.
It doesn't matter if you voted for Bush or not you're clearly following the party line.
Nixon resigned for criminal actions and attempting to cover it up from the american people. If he wasn't president he wouldn't have been pardoned and would have served time. Only part of his crime was what the conservatives harp about with Clinton.
It doesn't matter if you voted for Bush or not you're clearly following the party line.
Clearly.
Quote:
Nixon resigned for criminal actions and attempting to cover it up from the american people. If he wasn't presedent he wouldn't have been pardoned and would have served time. Only part of his crime was what the conservatives harp about with Clinton. That's a fact.
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
So even with your (incorrect) explanation of the phrase's meaning you admit that you were speculating on motivation (though apparently it's okay if you're uncertain).
FYI everyone else uses that phrase to mean that what follows is an exagerration of their true position, and funnily enough, I think that's what you meant too i.e. Bush *is* crusading on behalf of the Iraqi people, but that is not his entire (100%) motive.
Just in case you're not trying to weasel out what of you wrote, here's an educational link for you:
It would've helped the humanitarian crisis, but would've done nothing to hurt Hussein or speed disarmament.
You're speculating and it's wrong according to the link you posted.
Your argument is that of a child: "Nah, nah, it's too late. Bush is going to war anyway."
Why go to war if it wasn't necessary? Better sanctions, even according to you, would avert the humanitarian crisis. So we'll knock the humanitarian crisis off the list of necessary reasons to go to war.
I expect you to argue that in other posts as well.
I love it when they can't come up with a good rebuttal and start insulting.
Just trying to get a handle on why you go off on some anti-Republican rant defending Clinton.
A lot of women I know get emotional and are easily distracted during "that time". Just curious.
*hugs*
I don't know what the hell I'd be rebutting there. I feel no need to defend Republicans.
But I guess next time if I can't rebut something you say I'll just go on an off-topic partisan rant.
--
stupider:
Quote:
FYI everyone else uses that phrase to mean that what follows is an exagerration of their true position, and funnily enough, I think that's what you meant too i.e. Bush *is* crusading on behalf of the Iraqi people, but that is not his entire (100%) motive.
Well you just keep on thinking that's what I meant.
Safari screws with the spaces in the direct link. It's called War in Iraq versus Containment, Weighing the Costs (March 2003).pdf. It's the second-to-last link on the page.
Comments
The only things Clinton killed as a result of a lie to Congress were a few spilled sperm cells. (Bet all of you bible-thumpers are gonna quote Genesis 38 on that one as proof that Clinton should be struck down.)
And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by blocking humanitarian aid to Iraq.
But those aren't Americans.
Oh, and ignoring the build-up to the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans.
But those aren't Americans, either.
Bill never hurt a soul.
---
stupider:
If you're going to speculate on Bush's motives don't take it personally and get pissy when I respond.
I am not speculating on motives. I am telling you about a stated goal. You see there's a difference between speculating on internal motivations and relaying stated goals.
One is stated, the other is not.
I'll give you a minute to figure it out.
Originally posted by groverat
I am not speculating on motives. I am telling you about a stated goal. You see there's a difference between speculating on internal motivations and relaying stated goals.
One is stated, the other is not.
I'll give you a minute to figure it out.
I don't need a minute, I already know that you were speculating on Bush's internal motivations...
...I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people...
That is some spectacular logic.
Originally posted by groverat
I was speculating on his internal motivations by saying I "wouldn't"?
That is some spectacular logic.
English is your first language right?
Please paraphrase so I can understand what you meant to convey by this. (edit: without of course speculating on motives, which is apparently verboten)
...I wouldn't go so far as to say Bush is 100% crusading for the good of the Iraqi people..
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Sorry, but if my memory is right Clinton was never impeached (even if Kenneth Starr tried to do it), nor even Nixon who leave the job before his impeachment (to avoid this disgrace).
impeachment is the act of congress 'looking into' booting the president. actually being booted isn't impeachment.
" I do?
I say the US invasion will be and is for the benefit of the Iraqi people.
As far as the Bush administrations rationale goes I really don't care. It's beside the point. Oil, dead babies, kindness... whatever the motivation is I don't really care. The end result is a HUGE positive for the people of Iraq.
To me, life on the ground in Iraq is more important than the innerworkings of the Bush administration. Figuring out what the "motivation" is is impossible and circular. "
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what is wrong with the conservative argument. Let's not worry why we are over there. Let's just get on that bandwagon of blood and not even give it a second's thought because Dubbya says it's a good thing.
By the way it's your right as an American citizen to know why the president does things. We elected him, ( well not really in this case ) we pay his salary, he works for us. If he's not following our wishes we have a right to know. In effect we hired him to run the country. Looking at it any way else turns this into something other than a democracy.
PS. Clinton wasn't actually impeached. He admitted his wrong doing before that was finished. Nixon's crime was one hundred times worse. And he's stated he'd do it again because he thought he was doing the right thing. In case you don't remember that was breaking and entering to gain insider info and influence the outcome of a presidential campaign.
Poor Dick.
Please paraphrase so I can understand what you meant to convey by this. (edit: without of course speculating on motives, which is apparently verboten)
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
In this particular context, I was attempting to draw a line between stated goals and motivation. By saying "I wouldn't say..." I was telling the person reading that I was not attempting to explain that Bush's internal motivations matched the stated goals.
The goals that were stated openly and loudly and constantly.
Do the stated goals match the inner motivation? I don't know. I wouldn't say.
----
jimmac:
This is what is wrong with the conservative argument.
Conservative?
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and probably won't vote for him in 2004.
Pro-war = conservative Republican, eh? heh
Let's not worry why we are over there.
Ok.
By the way it's your right as an American citizen to know why the president does things. We elected him, ( well not really in this case ) we pay his salary, he works for us. If he's not following our wishes we have a right to know. In effect we hired him to run the country. Looking at it any way else turns this into something other than a democracy.
Bush has said that he sent troops in to disarm Hussein and remove him from power. Those are, apparently, his reasons.
Do you honestly think it's worthwhile for the president to start addressing conspiracy theories about his oil buddies and his desire to rule the world? Do you not think these questions are addressed constantly by Fliescher in those entertaining press conferences they hold *every day*?
What you're asking for here is for ME or some other poster on an internet message board to explain it to you. Do you even realize how pointless that is? That you'll distract from other, more valid conversation to make a demand of the presidential administration.
You're going to have your speculation no matter what anyone says. So have it. Don't address it to me because I don't care.
I honestly don't care about his motivation because I don't see it as too terribly sinister. I work on the assumption that Bush doesn't have a maniacal bloodlust or imperialist goals (he's got 5 more years max as president, don't forget that). Those are two motivations that would get me in the streets with "Bush is a Bastard" signs.
Is he working to protect American corporations? Even if that is his motivation it doesn't matter to me in the end because (1) the net positive of helping the people of Iraq outweighs the possible negative of that (and I'm not entirely sure what that negative is) and (2) protecting American corporations helps our economy and it's good for me.
If we were going into an otherwise-peaceful nation to take over oil fields you would hear a different tune from me. But we aren't.
You guys just aren't thinking this through.
PS. Clinton wasn't actually empeached. He admitted his wrong doing before that was finished. Nixon's crime was one hundred times worse. And he's stated he'd do it again because he thought he was doing the right thing. In case you don't remember that was breaking and entering to rig a presidential campaign.
Clinton was impeached.
That's reality.
That's fact.
William Jefferson Clinton was impeached as President of the United States.
Originally posted by groverat
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
In this particular context, I was attempting to draw a line between stated goals and motivation. By saying "I wouldn't say..." I was telling the person reading that I was not attempting to explain that Bush's internal motivations matched the stated goals.
The goals that were stated openly and loudly and constantly.
Do the stated goals match the inner motivation? I don't know. I wouldn't say.
----
jimmac:
Conservative?
I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 and probably won't vote for him in 2004.
Pro-war = conservative Republican, eh? heh
Ok.
Bush has said that he sent troops in to disarm Hussein and remove him from power. Those are, apparently, his reasons.
Do you honestly think it's worthwhile for the president to start addressing conspiracy theories about his oil buddies and his desire to rule the world? Do you not think these questions are addressed constantly by Fliescher in those entertaining press conferences they hold *every day*?
What you're asking for here is for ME or some other poster on an internet message board to explain it to you. Do you even realize how pointless that is? That you'll distract from other, more valid conversation to make a demand of the presidential administration.
You're going to have your speculation no matter what anyone says. So have it. Don't address it to me because I don't care.
I honestly don't care about his motivation because I don't see it as too terribly sinister. I work on the assumption that Bush doesn't have a maniacal bloodlust or imperialist goals (he's got 5 more years max as president, don't forget that). Those are two motivations that would get me in the streets with "Bush is a Bastard" signs.
Is he working to protect American corporations? Even if that is his motivation it doesn't matter to me in the end because (1) the net positive of helping the people of Iraq outweighs the possible negative of that (and I'm not entirely sure what that negative is) and (2) protecting American corporations helps our economy and it's good for me.
If we were going into an otherwise-peaceful nation to take over oil fields you would hear a different tune from me. But we aren't.
You guys just aren't thinking this through.
Clinton was impeached.
That's reality.
That's fact.
William Jefferson Clinton was impeached as President of the United States.
It doesn't matter if you voted for Bush or not you're clearly following the party line.
Nixon resigned for criminal actions and attempting to cover it up from the american people. If he wasn't president he wouldn't have been pardoned and would have served time. Only part of his crime was what the conservatives harp about with Clinton.
That's a fact.
It doesn't matter if you voted for Bush or not you're clearly following the party line.
Clearly.
Nixon resigned for criminal actions and attempting to cover it up from the american people. If he wasn't presedent he wouldn't have been pardoned and would have served time. Only part of his crime was what the conservatives harp about with Clinton. That's a fact.
Ok.
Are you on the rag?
Originally posted by groverat
Clearly.
Ok.
Are you on the rag?
I love it when they can't come up with a good rebuttal and start insulting.
Originally posted by groverat
When someone says something "I wouldn't go so far as to say" they are saying, "I cannot say with any certaintly".
So even with your (incorrect) explanation of the phrase's meaning you admit that you were speculating on motivation (though apparently it's okay if you're uncertain).
FYI everyone else uses that phrase to mean that what follows is an exagerration of their true position, and funnily enough, I think that's what you meant too i.e. Bush *is* crusading on behalf of the Iraqi people, but that is not his entire (100%) motive.
Just in case you're not trying to weasel out what of you wrote, here's an educational link for you:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22i+...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
edit: link with apostrophe was acting up
Originally posted by groverat
Are you on the rag?
That seems entirely uncalled for.
Originally posted by groverat
It would've helped the humanitarian crisis, but would've done nothing to hurt Hussein or speed disarmament.
You're speculating and it's wrong according to the link you posted.
Your argument is that of a child: "Nah, nah, it's too late. Bush is going to war anyway."
Why go to war if it wasn't necessary? Better sanctions, even according to you, would avert the humanitarian crisis. So we'll knock the humanitarian crisis off the list of necessary reasons to go to war.
I expect you to argue that in other posts as well.
I love it when they can't come up with a good rebuttal and start insulting.
Just trying to get a handle on why you go off on some anti-Republican rant defending Clinton.
A lot of women I know get emotional and are easily distracted during "that time". Just curious.
*hugs*
I don't know what the hell I'd be rebutting there. I feel no need to defend Republicans.
But I guess next time if I can't rebut something you say I'll just go on an off-topic partisan rant.
--
stupider:
FYI everyone else uses that phrase to mean that what follows is an exagerration of their true position, and funnily enough, I think that's what you meant too i.e. Bush *is* crusading on behalf of the Iraqi people, but that is not his entire (100%) motive.
Well you just keep on thinking that's what I meant.
Have fun doing it.
Originally posted by groverat
Even disregarding UNICEF's 500,000 deaths from sanctions figure, war is "cheaper" than containment.
I get a broken link. :-\\
Ok, the link for it is on this page.
Direct link to PDF. click
Safari screws with the spaces in the direct link. It's called War in Iraq versus Containment, Weighing the Costs (March 2003).pdf. It's the second-to-last link on the page.
Originally posted by Scott
Dude don't start linking to the GBS. That's forbidden.
GBS is fine. Weighing dollar amounts is sick.