This argument is not even worth my time. I'm playing your bullshit semantical games.
Definition of slam, to humor you: Bob Graham saying what Bush "did" with he Iraq intel rises to level of impeachment. He even had to recant when later asked about it. That's a "slam".
This whole stupid thread was started based on BULLSHIT SEMANTICAL GAMES. You don't come to a gun party and complain that people are playing with guns.
My god, Bush takes some political heat and the right-wingers, like you, have this need to label everyone "anti-American". So, in the great Republican honor of labeling, I propose that anyone who chooses to ostracise a citizen because of his beliefs as a "Totalitarian".
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: ?A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
This whole stupid thread was started based on BULLSHIT SEMANTICAL GAMES. You don't come to a gun party and complain that people are playing with guns
No, this thread was started based on statements made by the leader of a party that has been attacking our president for making a perfectly accurate statement because they smell some sort of political advantage. IT was started as a result of the archane statements that have flooded this board over the past weeks, in an attempt to point out that even the leader of the democratic party believes that the statement is accurate, the war was justified, and that America should move on.
For those of you who think it's not an argument worth making, you sure have spent a lot of time not making it.
To SDW2001 - your pompous arrogance is personally insulting.
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Most liberals are exactly the things you said. They've been rooting against the country for fifty years, despite what they say.
Hate!
Quote:
They have even been proven wrong on the myth of McCarthyism, with the secret Verona Project (Soviet Cable Code Breaking) declassification.
Sourced from Anne Coulter. Hate.
Quote:
They were wrong about Vietnam, and Nixon took a lot of the blame. They were REALLY wrong about Reagan. They were wrong about Grenada. They were wrong about Panama. They were wrong about Gulf War I and they'll be proven wrong yet again for Gulf War II. It's undeniable. Liberals cannot be trusted to protect the nation.
Funny, liberals were running 2/3 of congress during these events. I find it also interesting that all of these action were conducted with the approval of congress, thus the approval of liberals.
Quote:
I didn't hear him say that. One doesn't have to support Bush to love America. One does have to refer to him with respect and actually listen to what the man has to say, though. To an extent, being "anti-Bush" (rather than simply not supporting him) is, in fact, Anti-American.
He didn't say a lot of things, but the coloring of his language and word choice speak volumes (which is a contrivance you use to your advantage all the time). Giving a politician respect is a judgment call, something you know all too well SDW. But, let's not hide behind these curtains called "unsupportive" and "anti". Nowhere, has any liberal proclaimed themselves or joined a goup labeled "Anti-Bush". This, my friend, is a term YOU and your ilk created in order to throw yet another tainted and dirty word our way. Insulting and hateful and NOT in the true spirit of debate.
Quote:
Liberals don't want "accountability". They want revenge. They want power.
Keep convincing yourself of this. Just like you've convinced yourself that there's some gray line between being unsupportive of the president and being "anti-american" when in reality there is no line. In fact, I'm going so far as to fully project that your only beliefs are "the only good liberal is a dead liberal." A little extreme maybe? Perhaps. But, when you're constantly insulted and classified as an anti-american terrorist supporting commie pinko bastard, you resort to extremism in order to break through maelstrom of right wing bullshit.
Quote:
They want to change the Constitution so that they can do things their way, like go to war with a 75% majority of Congress.
This is bad how? The president, no matter what party affiliation, should never be able to impose his foreign military policies unchecked. There used to be this little thing called "declaration of war"...something we haven't done for awhile.
Quote:
Point two is not absurd...it's hilarious. Clinton said an administration was secretive? Stop....you are killing me here! You're talking about one of the most morally bankrupt Presidents in US history, with perhaps the most corrupt admiistration..."EVAR". And he's criticizing Bush? Wow. That's rich.
No, this thread was started based on statements made by the leader of a party that has been attacking our president for making a perfectly accurate statement because they smell some sort of political advantage. IT was started as a result of the archane statements that have flooded this board over the past weeks, in an attempt to point out that even the leader of the democratic party believes that the statement is accurate, the war was justified, and that America should move on.
For those of you who think it's not an argument worth making, you sure have spent a lot of time not making it.
If only this was true. This thread was started to bait liberals on the board by using insultuous and hateful rhetoric. Of which I'm guilty of taking.
I find it hard to believe that those of you who hate Bush so much (and America for that matter) can reconcile this with your image of Clinton-as-God.
So, what do you plan on doing with all of us? There's what, 50 million of us in the country? I mean, what do you do with millions of people who apparently loath their own country, take advantage of its spoils and poisons the political waters? Hmmm. Wasn't this dilemma a concern of a certain European leader from the 1930's?
How do you tell the difference between someone who simply is "unsupportive" of the president and someone who is "anti-Bush"? Is there a litmus (sp?) test for this? I don't think there is. Since there isn't a guage that represents an individual's "liberalness", what do you do? Play the word game! Since there really isn't a difference between being unsupportive of the president and being anti-Bush, since the root definition of both words is identical, all liberals find themselves fully and 100% guilty of treasonous anti-americanism.
So, what's next? What are you going to do with all of us? I mean, we can't be trusted, right. We aren't allowed to speak our mind. We must demure and hold are heads down in shame for being a minority. We can't fight for our own beliefs. We can't point out hypocrisy. We can't challenge our government. We must obey the rule of the majority. Perhaps we should just wear a little yellow "L" on our clothes so we can easily be identified and publicly scorned and ridiculed.
If only this was true. This thread was started to bait liberals on the board by using insultuous and hateful rhetoric. Of which I'm guilty of taking.
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
... oh yeah, that's how you liberals do things.....
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
... oh yeah, that's how you liberals do things.....
Hmm. No one addressed the issue because you first started a topic with no original thought or opinion and then added this little tidbit of flamebait just for kicks:
Quote:
funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm
How the hell did you get to be a federal prosecuter? Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
How the hell did you get to be a federal prosecuter? Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
inept? hmm... how did I get to be a Federal Prosecuter? Well, here's a little civic lesson for you. I was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Of course you probably already knew that that was how US Attorney's get their jobs, but that's okay.
Furthermore, it wasn't flamebait - I am asking a legitimate question - which you have still not answered....
Additionally, this forum isn't where I do my work - this is a release. I'm pretty sure that my political opinions reflect very little on my professional capacity.
Additionally, this forum isn't where I do my work - this is a release. I'm pretty sure that my political opinions reflect very little on my professional capacity.
While I dont necessarily consider you inept at what you do, since I havent seen you in action in prosecution etc, I do find it hard to believe that you cannot provide a substantive argument to match the article you began this thread with. Half of my family are lawyers, and I am pretty sure they can reason things out and write them down so that the common folk can understand. Yet you refuse to do so.
You obviously have a political bias. And while you believe that your "political opinions reflect very little on [your] professional capacity," any thinking person be they conservative, liberal, green, or a narcissistic facist realize that this statement is necessarily false. You bring to your work yourself (unless you have bipolar disorder, which would give ample reason for you not to be a federal prosecutor), in every thing that you do your own biases towards reflection in one light will have, over time, a marked effect on the arguments you follow, the cases you pursue, and the stances you take in the court.
The people claiming ineptitude have these reasons behind their leap. You seem to lack the desire to think or even argue; frankly, you seem to be in the wrong line of work. But I would not go so far as to call you inept.
Liberals have been on the wrong side of nearly every national security issue for the last fifty years.
This would appear to tie in with your ill-informed notion that Clinton / Gore created a "National Security Nightmare"...however, I couldn't help but notice that you failed to return to that thread once all your assertions had been refuted. Perhaps you should revisit it?
Quote:
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
Assuming that every liberal on this board is a Democrat is probably inaccurate?I know I?m not. Although I've always liked Clinton, I have not always agreed with him and I know many people feel similarly. Clinton?s faint praise of the Bush Administration ? even if sincere ? is hardly going to change my opinion of the matter.
funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm
I thought all self-respecting conservatives had to automatically disagree with anything Clinton says or touches.
SDW reminds me of a Creationist backed into a hole without anything left to say. I recently had to have a talk with a friend about that (do not discuss politics or religion with a friend unless you go way back! ) Another example of this is Fellowship iBook. You see, when they finally think they have clinched on to a single little fact that apparently supports them, they run here and post a thread proclaiming they are 100% right, and finally can prove it. My friend's dad, a minister, apparently has some tapes where a scientist performs 11 experiments on a clam and concludes it is billions of years old and thus carbon dating is not true. I just did this
SDW let me explain, I took AP US History. I am a history buff, I love this stuff. I watch the History channel when I go to sleep at college. Can you link to any of your statements and explain them? I don't understand a single one of your statements. Are you aware of who Eugene McCarthy is!? *cough* Salem witch trials *cough* It is up to you to research and provide us links if you want us to believe your statements. Especially since they go against the grain of history texts.
"President" Reagan was an actor. And no I hope California doesn't elect Ahnold, because although Davis has some issues to tackle, actors especially if you need subtitles, don't make politicians. Bush is a regular guy who does not care about regular people. I don't know how much a prosecutor makes but I can't see why regular people like him, unless it's because they are rich or a Creationist or something. Think about it. He is giving companies tax breaks, and using TAX money to have them build oil infrastructure, phone and electric infrastructure, etc in Iraq. It is a military industrial complex. The War in Iraq: Brought to you by Boeing. Boeing: if you want to blow really big stuff up.? (hat off to the Daily Show!) I have nothing against the philosophy of classic Republicans. Lincoln was the good guy?, Souther Democrats were the bad guys?, until the parties mysteriously swapped names. TR was a conservative who conserved things like the environment. Good guy. And a military man through and through, Ike, warned us of the military industrial complex. Now look at graphs of US deficit. It was the biggest in the Reagan years. It was huge huge huge! It's getting large again. How does this qualify as "conservative"? I will tell you. The Republican party has been hijacked by rich people. Instead of staying inside American or diplomatically handling international issues they whack people with the Big Stick until they get their money for their brib...I mean lobbyist constituents, then withdraw. Who cares about Afghanistan now? It doesn't have oil! Who cares about the Iraqi people? All that matters is oil. Yaaay!
Quote:
Assuming that every liberal on this board is a Democrat is probably inaccurate?I know I?m not. Although I've always liked Clinton, I have not always agreed with him and I know many people feel similarly. Clinton?s faint praise of the Bush Administration ? even if sincere ? is hardly going to change my opinion of the matter.
Straight and to the point. Good post.
Quote:
Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
It's worse. I have a hard time believing someone with such kneejerk, unresearched posts attained such a position. Then again many courts are a club of Creationists anyway. And considering the recent flurry of nominations going on.. which will have a severe and lasting impact on what really goes on. Bad.
ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD/BUSH BE DAMNED. I love America and that is why I am so vocal. This country isn't about sitting down and shutting the hell up, or we wouldn't have elections. And contrast how many wars have been started by liberals vs. conservatives.
And are you trying to paint Nixon as a good guy!? You are mad about Clinton lying about a blowjob but you aren't pissed about Nixon lying about Watergate? And how about Iran Contra.
I am glad I live in Vermont and I can say I like my politicians. I met them. I watch the Congressional proceedings from time to time and whenever I see Leahy in there he's always fighting back the Republican majority. A lot of you guys who are liberal you have to give this guy props, his job daily is to keep these "nutty whacko conservatives" from enacting their (imo) ridiculous laws. I was surprised how active we are in New England. Little states always seem to have good politicians. I think it's a little guy "reprasent" mentality. Rhode Island has some great people working for it. I like the Republicans who are actually decent people who fight for the little guy and despite their personal beliefs listen and don't always go with the flow if they see a reason to disagree. I bet Chafee will be the next Republican "Switcher."
OBJRA10 this is an example of a kneejerk reaction.
Yes I am anti Bush so therefore anti American. Because we want to be American. And Nazi. Because the Bush admin shows similarities to them, for example Homeland Security. And yes I want terrorists to kill me, my family, and my friends.
A more sensitive approach: I don't want anyone in America to be killed by terrorists. Use of force to spread a political message is wrong, and I am a pacifist in all but the most extreme situations like World War I and II. That is why I think Vietnam, McCarthy, and Nixon were gravely mistaken. Political debate internationally through diplomats and votes reflects a more intelligent way of conducting ourselves in the 21st century. Eventually we will all be one country, I hope.
Inflammatory statements are bound to cause pointed reactions directed to you personally. Just because it's AppleOutsider, we shouldn't lose semblance of formal etiquette and respect. We're all still people after all and these are only our views on subjects. I respect Fellowship iBook as a cool guy, for example, I just disagree with some of his views. If you want someone to respect you and your views, it is best to put things politely. I think everyone here at AI is becoming a better poster as time goes on. Hopefully you will too. Thank you for your time.
This is thread would have a much different tone if you had only made your first post, not the second flamebait one.
I just can't figure out why no one will actually address the issue. Sure, you don't like me, or you don't like how I put it. Get over it. So far, most of the posts have been off topic.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
I'll give you that you don't consider him god, I'll give you that you may be liberal and not democratic (in which case this really wouldn't apply to you).
Just someone have the balls to actually answer the question please.
It's like you think you've found an inconsistency in the Bible or something. Are members of a political party always 100% consistent in their views? (Well, maybe Republicans are...). Some Democrats support the war in general, and others don't. It's maybe 50-50. So what? Even the White House has admitted problems with how the nukular story got into the State of the Union.
Here's a shocker for you - LOTS OF DEMOCRATS PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH CLINTON ON THIS!!! Wow. Unbelievable, I know.
The reason people think this thread is silly is that the premise is utterly vacuous. It's an argument from authority rather than substance. Oh, that's right, you're an attorney so that's how you think. It's not like he's the Supreme Court and his opinion is binding on all Democrats or something.
There are dozens of pages of threads in AI discussing whether the administration lied about the justification for war. We've discussed the facts of it to death for over a year now. Now Clinton comes along and has an opinion, and you think you've found the ultimate truth or something? Please. If you actually have something substantive to add to the WMD debate, please do so.
I just can't figure out why no one will actually address the issue. Sure, you don't like me, or you don't like how I put it. Get over it. So far, most of the posts have been off topic.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
...
Just someone have the balls to actually answer the question please.
Clinton is wrong and is politicizing.
Btw, to be sure, what is the Democratic party line on Iraq? I don't really know actually.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
Because, unlike certain politcal parties, the democrats don't automatically walk , lock step, bah bah sheepishly, behind anyone who happens to be in the democrat party?
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
This argument is not even worth my time. I'm playing your bullshit semantical games.
Definition of slam, to humor you: Bob Graham saying what Bush "did" with he Iraq intel rises to level of impeachment. He even had to recant when later asked about it. That's a "slam".
This whole stupid thread was started based on BULLSHIT SEMANTICAL GAMES. You don't come to a gun party and complain that people are playing with guns.
My god, Bush takes some political heat and the right-wingers, like you, have this need to label everyone "anti-American". So, in the great Republican honor of labeling, I propose that anyone who chooses to ostracise a citizen because of his beliefs as a "Totalitarian".
to·tal·i·tar·i·an
adj.
Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: ?A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul? (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.).
n.
A practitioner or supporter of such a government.
This whole stupid thread was started based on BULLSHIT SEMANTICAL GAMES. You don't come to a gun party and complain that people are playing with guns
No, this thread was started based on statements made by the leader of a party that has been attacking our president for making a perfectly accurate statement because they smell some sort of political advantage. IT was started as a result of the archane statements that have flooded this board over the past weeks, in an attempt to point out that even the leader of the democratic party believes that the statement is accurate, the war was justified, and that America should move on.
For those of you who think it's not an argument worth making, you sure have spent a lot of time not making it.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Most liberals are exactly the things you said. They've been rooting against the country for fifty years, despite what they say.
Hate!
They have even been proven wrong on the myth of McCarthyism, with the secret Verona Project (Soviet Cable Code Breaking) declassification.
Sourced from Anne Coulter. Hate.
They were wrong about Vietnam, and Nixon took a lot of the blame. They were REALLY wrong about Reagan. They were wrong about Grenada. They were wrong about Panama. They were wrong about Gulf War I and they'll be proven wrong yet again for Gulf War II. It's undeniable. Liberals cannot be trusted to protect the nation.
Funny, liberals were running 2/3 of congress during these events. I find it also interesting that all of these action were conducted with the approval of congress, thus the approval of liberals.
I didn't hear him say that. One doesn't have to support Bush to love America. One does have to refer to him with respect and actually listen to what the man has to say, though. To an extent, being "anti-Bush" (rather than simply not supporting him) is, in fact, Anti-American.
He didn't say a lot of things, but the coloring of his language and word choice speak volumes (which is a contrivance you use to your advantage all the time). Giving a politician respect is a judgment call, something you know all too well SDW. But, let's not hide behind these curtains called "unsupportive" and "anti". Nowhere, has any liberal proclaimed themselves or joined a goup labeled "Anti-Bush". This, my friend, is a term YOU and your ilk created in order to throw yet another tainted and dirty word our way. Insulting and hateful and NOT in the true spirit of debate.
Liberals don't want "accountability". They want revenge. They want power.
Keep convincing yourself of this. Just like you've convinced yourself that there's some gray line between being unsupportive of the president and being "anti-american" when in reality there is no line. In fact, I'm going so far as to fully project that your only beliefs are "the only good liberal is a dead liberal." A little extreme maybe? Perhaps. But, when you're constantly insulted and classified as an anti-american terrorist supporting commie pinko bastard, you resort to extremism in order to break through maelstrom of right wing bullshit.
They want to change the Constitution so that they can do things their way, like go to war with a 75% majority of Congress.
This is bad how? The president, no matter what party affiliation, should never be able to impose his foreign military policies unchecked. There used to be this little thing called "declaration of war"...something we haven't done for awhile.
Point two is not absurd...it's hilarious. Clinton said an administration was secretive?
Umm, no. Jim Angle of FOX NEWS said this.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
No, this thread was started based on statements made by the leader of a party that has been attacking our president for making a perfectly accurate statement because they smell some sort of political advantage. IT was started as a result of the archane statements that have flooded this board over the past weeks, in an attempt to point out that even the leader of the democratic party believes that the statement is accurate, the war was justified, and that America should move on.
For those of you who think it's not an argument worth making, you sure have spent a lot of time not making it.
If only this was true. This thread was started to bait liberals on the board by using insultuous and hateful rhetoric. Of which I'm guilty of taking.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I find it hard to believe that those of you who hate Bush so much (and America for that matter) can reconcile this with your image of Clinton-as-God.
So, what do you plan on doing with all of us? There's what, 50 million of us in the country? I mean, what do you do with millions of people who apparently loath their own country, take advantage of its spoils and poisons the political waters? Hmmm. Wasn't this dilemma a concern of a certain European leader from the 1930's?
How do you tell the difference between someone who simply is "unsupportive" of the president and someone who is "anti-Bush"? Is there a litmus (sp?) test for this? I don't think there is. Since there isn't a guage that represents an individual's "liberalness", what do you do? Play the word game! Since there really isn't a difference between being unsupportive of the president and being anti-Bush, since the root definition of both words is identical, all liberals find themselves fully and 100% guilty of treasonous anti-americanism.
So, what's next? What are you going to do with all of us? I mean, we can't be trusted, right. We aren't allowed to speak our mind. We must demure and hold are heads down in shame for being a minority. We can't fight for our own beliefs. We can't point out hypocrisy. We can't challenge our government. We must obey the rule of the majority. Perhaps we should just wear a little yellow "L" on our clothes so we can easily be identified and publicly scorned and ridiculed.
If only this was true. This thread was started to bait liberals on the board by using insultuous and hateful rhetoric. Of which I'm guilty of taking.
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
... oh yeah, that's how you liberals do things.....
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
... oh yeah, that's how you liberals do things.....
Hmm. No one addressed the issue because you first started a topic with no original thought or opinion and then added this little tidbit of flamebait just for kicks:
funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm
How the hell did you get to be a federal prosecuter? Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
How the hell did you get to be a federal prosecuter? Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
inept? hmm... how did I get to be a Federal Prosecuter? Well, here's a little civic lesson for you. I was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Of course you probably already knew that that was how US Attorney's get their jobs, but that's okay.
Furthermore, it wasn't flamebait - I am asking a legitimate question - which you have still not answered....
Additionally, this forum isn't where I do my work - this is a release. I'm pretty sure that my political opinions reflect very little on my professional capacity.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Furthermore, it wasn't flamebait - I am asking a legitimate question - which you have still not answered....
.
The question is legitimate, the way it was formulate was not.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
my professional capacity.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Additionally, this forum isn't where I do my work - this is a release. I'm pretty sure that my political opinions reflect very little on my professional capacity.
While I dont necessarily consider you inept at what you do, since I havent seen you in action in prosecution etc, I do find it hard to believe that you cannot provide a substantive argument to match the article you began this thread with. Half of my family are lawyers, and I am pretty sure they can reason things out and write them down so that the common folk can understand. Yet you refuse to do so.
You obviously have a political bias. And while you believe that your "political opinions reflect very little on [your] professional capacity," any thinking person be they conservative, liberal, green, or a narcissistic facist realize that this statement is necessarily false. You bring to your work yourself (unless you have bipolar disorder, which would give ample reason for you not to be a federal prosecutor), in every thing that you do your own biases towards reflection in one light will have, over time, a marked effect on the arguments you follow, the cases you pursue, and the stances you take in the court.
The people claiming ineptitude have these reasons behind their leap. You seem to lack the desire to think or even argue; frankly, you seem to be in the wrong line of work. But I would not go so far as to call you inept.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Liberals have been on the wrong side of nearly every national security issue for the last fifty years.
This would appear to tie in with your ill-informed notion that Clinton / Gore created a "National Security Nightmare"...however, I couldn't help but notice that you failed to return to that thread once all your assertions had been refuted. Perhaps you should revisit it?
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Actually, I should know since I started the thread.... It really was started to ask how you reconcile the departure of your leader from the party line. None of you have even bothered to address the issue.
Assuming that every liberal on this board is a Democrat is probably inaccurate?I know I?m not. Although I've always liked Clinton, I have not always agreed with him and I know many people feel similarly. Clinton?s faint praise of the Bush Administration ? even if sincere ? is hardly going to change my opinion of the matter.
Where to begin...
Clinton-as-God.
THT beat me to it! I don't believe in God.
funny, none of you liberal wackos have a problem with this? Your great leader admits he blew it and that Bush was right..... hmmmmmm
I thought all self-respecting conservatives had to automatically disagree with anything Clinton says or touches.
SDW reminds me of a Creationist backed into a hole without anything left to say. I recently had to have a talk with a friend about that (do not discuss politics or religion with a friend unless you go way back!
SDW let me explain, I took AP US History. I am a history buff, I love this stuff. I watch the History channel when I go to sleep at college. Can you link to any of your statements and explain them? I don't understand a single one of your statements. Are you aware of who Eugene McCarthy is!? *cough* Salem witch trials *cough* It is up to you to research and provide us links if you want us to believe your statements. Especially since they go against the grain of history texts.
"President" Reagan was an actor. And no I hope California doesn't elect Ahnold, because although Davis has some issues to tackle, actors especially if you need subtitles, don't make politicians. Bush is a regular guy who does not care about regular people. I don't know how much a prosecutor makes but I can't see why regular people like him, unless it's because they are rich or a Creationist or something. Think about it. He is giving companies tax breaks, and using TAX money to have them build oil infrastructure, phone and electric infrastructure, etc in Iraq. It is a military industrial complex. The War in Iraq: Brought to you by Boeing. Boeing: if you want to blow really big stuff up.? (hat off to the Daily Show!) I have nothing against the philosophy of classic Republicans. Lincoln was the good guy?, Souther Democrats were the bad guys?, until the parties mysteriously swapped names. TR was a conservative who conserved things like the environment. Good guy. And a military man through and through, Ike, warned us of the military industrial complex. Now look at graphs of US deficit. It was the biggest in the Reagan years. It was huge huge huge! It's getting large again. How does this qualify as "conservative"? I will tell you. The Republican party has been hijacked by rich people. Instead of staying inside American or diplomatically handling international issues they whack people with the Big Stick until they get their money for their brib...I mean lobbyist constituents, then withdraw. Who cares about Afghanistan now? It doesn't have oil! Who cares about the Iraqi people? All that matters is oil. Yaaay!
Assuming that every liberal on this board is a Democrat is probably inaccurate?I know I?m not. Although I've always liked Clinton, I have not always agreed with him and I know many people feel similarly. Clinton?s faint praise of the Bush Administration ? even if sincere ? is hardly going to change my opinion of the matter.
Straight and to the point. Good post.
Well, with some of the stupid laws that have been enacted lately, I guess it isn't so bad having someone so inept in such a role.
It's worse. I have a hard time believing someone with such kneejerk, unresearched posts attained such a position. Then again many courts are a club of Creationists anyway. And considering the recent flurry of nominations going on.. which will have a severe and lasting impact on what really goes on. Bad.
ONE COUNTRY UNDER GOD/BUSH BE DAMNED. I love America and that is why I am so vocal. This country isn't about sitting down and shutting the hell up, or we wouldn't have elections. And contrast how many wars have been started by liberals vs. conservatives.
And are you trying to paint Nixon as a good guy!? You are mad about Clinton lying about a blowjob but you aren't pissed about Nixon lying about Watergate? And how about Iran Contra.
I am glad I live in Vermont and I can say I like my politicians. I met them. I watch the Congressional proceedings from time to time and whenever I see Leahy in there he's always fighting back the Republican majority. A lot of you guys who are liberal you have to give this guy props, his job daily is to keep these "nutty whacko conservatives" from enacting their (imo) ridiculous laws. I was surprised how active we are in New England. Little states always seem to have good politicians. I think it's a little guy "reprasent" mentality. Rhode Island has some great people working for it. I like the Republicans who are actually decent people who fight for the little guy and despite their personal beliefs listen and don't always go with the flow if they see a reason to disagree. I bet Chafee will be the next Republican "Switcher."
Yes I am anti Bush so therefore anti American. Because we want to be American. And Nazi. Because the Bush admin shows similarities to them, for example Homeland Security. And yes I want terrorists to kill me, my family, and my friends.
A more sensitive approach: I don't want anyone in America to be killed by terrorists. Use of force to spread a political message is wrong, and I am a pacifist in all but the most extreme situations like World War I and II. That is why I think Vietnam, McCarthy, and Nixon were gravely mistaken. Political debate internationally through diplomats and votes reflects a more intelligent way of conducting ourselves in the 21st century. Eventually we will all be one country, I hope.
Inflammatory statements are bound to cause pointed reactions directed to you personally. Just because it's AppleOutsider, we shouldn't lose semblance of formal etiquette and respect. We're all still people after all and these are only our views on subjects. I respect Fellowship iBook as a cool guy, for example, I just disagree with some of his views. If you want someone to respect you and your views, it is best to put things politely. I think everyone here at AI is becoming a better poster as time goes on. Hopefully you will too. Thank you for your time.
This is thread would have a much different tone if you had only made your first post, not the second flamebait one.
Edit: I know I'm in between those two usually.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
I'll give you that you don't consider him god, I'll give you that you may be liberal and not democratic (in which case this really wouldn't apply to you).
Just someone have the balls to actually answer the question please.
It's like you think you've found an inconsistency in the Bible or something. Are members of a political party always 100% consistent in their views? (Well, maybe Republicans are...). Some Democrats support the war in general, and others don't. It's maybe 50-50. So what? Even the White House has admitted problems with how the nukular story got into the State of the Union.
Here's a shocker for you - LOTS OF DEMOCRATS PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH CLINTON ON THIS!!! Wow. Unbelievable, I know.
The reason people think this thread is silly is that the premise is utterly vacuous. It's an argument from authority rather than substance. Oh, that's right, you're an attorney so that's how you think. It's not like he's the Supreme Court and his opinion is binding on all Democrats or something.
There are dozens of pages of threads in AI discussing whether the administration lied about the justification for war. We've discussed the facts of it to death for over a year now. Now Clinton comes along and has an opinion, and you think you've found the ultimate truth or something? Please. If you actually have something substantive to add to the WMD debate, please do so.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
I just can't figure out why no one will actually address the issue. Sure, you don't like me, or you don't like how I put it. Get over it. So far, most of the posts have been off topic.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
...
Just someone have the balls to actually answer the question please.
Clinton is wrong and is politicizing.
Btw, to be sure, what is the Democratic party line on Iraq? I don't really know actually.
I just want to know - how do you reconcille Clinton's statements as they are so opposed to the party line.
Because, unlike certain politcal parties, the democrats don't automatically walk , lock step, bah bah sheepishly, behind anyone who happens to be in the democrat party?