TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- 2008 Elections
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover MisterOpus1, You are the by far the closest minded Dem I have encounter.

Oh no, I'm sorry, I forgot to tell you - I'm not a Dem. any more than you are a Repub., right?

And you seem to really take a liking to the smiley laughy faces. They are cute, aren't they? Not exactly the best substitute for supporting opinion, but they're cute to use nonetheless.

quote:

You are like Michael Moore, you would bend over to have the a Dem in charge.

Ahh yes, I was waiting for the shill paint brush to paint everyone who disagrees with you in the extremist corner.

You know, there's a few other well-known pundits out there that partake in the exact same generalization smear as you. Strangely, they're all hard-core far-right Conservatives.

Again I ask, are you sure you're not a Republican? Because the characteristics you're displaying are just, well, a bit too coincidental.

As for your charge of being a close minded Dem., given what we've discussed so far, let's see how far "close-minded" of a Dem. I am compared to the rest of the nation:

Redeployment of our troops with a timeline and benchmarks:

quote:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE � 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?" Approve � 24% Disapprove � 71% Unsure � 5% "Do you think the United States should or should not set a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq sometime in 2008?" 4/20-24/07 Should � 64% Should not � 32% Unsure � 4% NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Neil Newhouse (R). April 20-23, 2007. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.1 (for all adults). RV = registered voters "When it comes to the debate on Iraq who do you agree with more: the Democrats in Congress, who say we should set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq; OR, President Bush, who says we should NOT set a deadline for troop withdrawal from Iraq?" 4/20-23/07 Democrats Deadline � 56% President No Deadline � 37% "Do you think the U.S. goal of achieving victory in Iraq is still possible, or not?" Half sample (Form B) Still Possible � 36% Not Possible � 55% Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. April 18-22, 2007. N=1,508 adults nationwide. MoE � 3 (for all adults). RV = registered voters "The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?" "The Congress is now debating future funding for the war in Iraq. Would you like to see your congressional representative vote FOR or AGAINST a bill that calls for a withdrawal of troops from Iraq to be completed by August of 2008?" 4/18-22/07 For � 59% Against -33% "Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?" 4/18-22/07 Right Decision � 45% Wrong Decision � 47% "Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism?" 4/18-22/07 Helped � 38% Hurt � 44% http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

Now there's a sample of 3 different polls on the American sentiment with Iraq and the Democrats versus Bush.

Funny, I didn't realize just how many of us Michael Moore's there were out there? I mean, how many fringe Moonbat tree-huggin libruls are there? Surely those polls are wrong?

Let's see, what else did we cover?

Ah yes, rolling back tax cuts on the top 1%. Well let's take a look at one of your Republicans favorite pollsters, Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/200...ntonTaxPlan.htm

By golly, 59% of American adults favor the Clinton plan of rolling back tax cuts on the top tier. My God, I myself didn't realize just how many fringe whacko Democrats make up the majority American public! That's just unbelievable, ain't it?

Moving on:

quote:

On a more serious note, you want to talk about tax breaks? Fucksake your saying to increase tax on the rich? Those are the people creating jobs and investing. I say not only tax break for the rich but for all americans.

Because you have evidence that demonstrates a direct influence of tax breaks creating jobs and investment, right? I'll bite, because I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. In fact, I've seen evidence directly to the contrary:

http://www.cbpp.org/policy-points1-23-07.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/8-9-05bud.htm

http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm

Your last two Republican presidents had a vague understanding of fiscal responsibility (Bush Sr. a bit more than Reagan), which was why they INCREASED taxes after a tax cut. Your current president and party has absolutely no fucking clue what fiscal responsiblity is, and has unfortunately left our future generations to pay the credit card bill your party has created. You want to talk about taxes, YOUR PARTY has created a birth tax on our future generations for footing the debt and deficit you continue to create and support.

That is the biggest tax increase any Dem. could ever rollback.

quote:

Is like their proposal to increase the minimum wage... its a joke.

Hmm, yes, I guess that's why the huge majority of Americans want an increase, because we all think it's a joke too:

quote:

Associated Press-AOL News Poll conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs. Dec. 19-21, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE � 3.1. . "Do you favor or oppose an increase in the minimum wage?" 12/19-21/06 Favor � 80% Oppose � 18% CNN Poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation. Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2006. N=1,004 adults nationwide. MoE � 3. . "Do you favor or oppose Congress passing legislation that would raise the minimum wage?" 8/30 - 9/2/06 Favor � 86% Oppose � 13% http://www.pollingreport.com/work.htm

You know, it might be a bit crazy to think this, but maybe, just maybe folks like myself who agree with 80-86% of the rest of Americans just happen to think that the minimum wage should be raised and kept up with inflation just as it's always done historically, because folks like myself know that there's no evidence to support the Wingnut notion that increasing minimum wage has ever hurt businesses?

Naaahh, I shouldn't think that. That would just be a bit too, uhh, too much of a librul conspiracy. Nevermind.....

quote:

The Dems didnt do shit in their first 100 hrs. They havent done shit to this day...

You mean all those bills that they voted on, those bills in the first 100 days that had the broad majority of public support, in your words "didn't do shit"? Hmmm, perhaps you're right, considering it's up to the FUCKING PRESIDENT TO SIGN THOSE BILLS, AIN'T IT CHAMP?

But who would want to think of the thought of the Demcratic Congress doing what the majority of Americans want them to do? Let's just get rid of that nasty thought right now!

quote:

all they do is come up with bills that endanger the lives of our brave soldiers but they are promoting failure.

Uhh, guess what, champ? Take a wild guess on who's vetoing the bill that's funding our troops? Is that the Democrats? In fact, is there anything in that bill that says it's cutting off funding for our troops? Could you cite any info. from that bill that specifically states as such?

And spare me your bullshit about Democrats not protecting the troops. It was YOUR fucking idiot president and party who sent our military to war without proper protection:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...r_humvee_armor/

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/topsto..._305195404.html

Refuses to provide adequate health care to our National Guard members:

http://www.theolympian.com/home/new...ge/131364.shtml

Have been completely exposed to not taking care of our disabled veterans:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...7021701172.html

To which my future job in Physical Therapy will have to pick up the mess spilled over from inadequate care your President has created for our Iraqi veterans. So keep your GOP talking point rhetoric to your "Independent" self, sir.

quote:

Instead of progressing you are going backwards... you are still debating the WMD evidence buddy we are in this war already, LETS FIND A SOLUTION!

I believe the order of events in our debate was that I made a comment about manipulated intelligence, then you gave the talking point line that everyone thought Iraq had WMDs, and then I pointed out to you with evidence that there were definite discrepencies once that intelligence was more closely examined by us as well as counterevidence being ignored.

It's absolutely disingenuous of you to attempt to portray me as the one going back and pointing out WMDs when you were clearly discussing it as well. If you have something further to add to the evidence I laid out in my last post, then by all means do so. Otherwise your attempts to downplay the events and mischaracterize my stance in this discussion with WMDs does not go unnoticed.

quote:

A solution is not to withdraw... Dont give me this shit that its Bushs fault we are there. Congress approved the war, both Rep and Dem

Correction, nearly all Republicans and the minority number of Democrats voted for the war. And yes, it is Bush and this Adminstration's fault we are there, as the evidence I laid out to you in regards to false al Qaeda connections, lying sources like Curveball, and lack of WMD intelligence clearly demonstrate. If you wish to debate this in detail, then do so. Otherwise you are being disingenuous by blatantly ignoring what I previously posted and pretending to lay the blame on everyone else.

quote:

If all you want is to withdraw, have the dems provide you with free health care, for them to drag you by the hand for the rest of your live, tax the living shit out of the rich and save the fish and tress go ahead and vote for them.

I'll tell you what I want � I want what the broad majority of Americans want: gradual redeployment of our troops from Iraq while keeping some forces on the ground to go after al Qaeda and train the Iraqi soldiers, i.e. a more diplomatic strategy rather than a military one as described by the Bush-appointed Iraqi Study Group, an increase in minimum wage, FISCAL FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY, i.e. balancing the budget and getting us out of the red, a rollback on tax cuts for the top 1%, a revamp on the medicare system so there's actual competition (i.e. capitalism) between insurance companies and the government, healthcare for all children, and yes, tighter restrictions on greenhouse gases as well as better tax incentives for clean fuel.

Now I'm sorry if all this sounds really whacko to an "Independent" like yourself, but again, these simple policies are the same ones that the majority of Americans have consistently wanted as well. I'm wondering if YOU happened to realize just how far out of the mainstream YOU are?

quote:

My point: The dem presidential candidates are a joke! Obama/Clinton etc..

Yes, and you've done ample evidence thus far to demonstrate that.

Wait. No. Actually, you haven't presented jack shit so far. I wait with baited breath.

quote:

The only one that is more convincing is Edwards.

I like him too. Yea, yippie, we agree on something.

quote:

The GOP in the other hand have way better candidates.

Yeah, they're WAY cooler. It's like, like, they're just WAY cooler, man. And Spiderman would definitely kick Thor's butt! He's WAY better!

quote:

If you want to attack the GOP by the number of wifes theyve had your sad.

So's your grammer.

Regardless, how is it sad to demonstrate the affairs of one president to the multiple affairs of presidential candidates whom you support? You really are having a hard time answering direct questions, aren't you?

quote:

In contrast, Clinton i keep repeating, the same desk that your president is seating at to find a solution for Iraq, Clinton was getting head by monica all day. Dude do you even know the past history of Clinton with other women? It wouldnt surprise me if he got other women to give him head in the presidential office. He was talking to some minister, cant recall his name, over the phone and monica was going at it. Im not lying this was confirmed when he was getting impeached, later on he called him and apologized lol.

Hey, speaking of affairs, what's with your party anyway?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428...YKLbE9GVpes0NUE

You got gay Republican Congressmen fucking around with their aides, now you've got Republicans tripped up in prostitute rings?

Hmm, I thought you guys were the party of "moral values"?

quote:

Clinton knows he was ineffective. If you know history... what is the best way to have your history and legacy written?

Uhh, I dunno, perhaps the best economy with over 20 million jobs this country has ever seen?

You also realize that despite his little affair to which no one in their right minds would approve of, Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating?

Gee, that's some "embarrassing" legacy that the majority of Americans remember, ain't it?

Perhaps if it wasn't for you Wingnuts that keep trying to remind us about how horrible things were back in the 90's, I guess we'd be SO MUCH MORE THANKFUL for the lovely wonderful man we have in office today, huh?

Because in the end, everything is always Clinton's fault, ain't it champ?

quote:

To write it yourself lol that is what Clinton did with "My life" he talked about monica like in three sentences... usually it takes up to 10yrs for historians to go back and he did it before that time frame lol. To help himself, that is why you have him with all these shit like promoting healthy foods in school etc.. helping the people in africa. Im not saying thats bad, but that is the truth! ==

Yes, you've amply demonstrated your skills with the truth here so far. I've got one more thing for you to think about : it's a comparison of your current president to Clinton:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05...poll/index.html

And my goodness, how about that? Despite all the rhetoric of painting Clinton as some evil sex fiend with Monica and others, the majority of Americans would STILL CHOOSE CLINTON OVER BUSH hands down.

Now that's gotta get your panties all bunched up. I know if I were an "Independent" like you who supports Bush and candidates just like him, I wouldn't want to look at polls like that. I would just ignore them, much as you've been doing thus far, and continue harping on a point about how great your candidate is by attempting to knock down everyone else. Hey, it's alright. I understand. If I were an "Independent" like you, I'd be mad too.

But ya know, the rest of us Americans in the majority are just plain tired of your bullshit rhetoric, so when we decide to go a different direction for a new President like we did last November for a majority Democratic Congress, you're just gonna have to find some good anger management skills. If those skills involve coming here to gripe, rest assured I'm here to listen......

....and happily point out how silly your arguments are altogether.

go check your pm box^

I like a guy who isn't afraid to blame the REAL culprits of problems.

A guy like Newt:

quote:

�I want to say to the elite of this country - the elite news media, the liberal academic elite, the liberal political elite: I accuse you in Littleton�of being afraid to talk about the mess you have made, and being afraid to take responsibility for things you have done, and instead foisting upon the rest of us pathetic banalities because you don�t have the courage to look at the world you have created.� http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=3544

Yes, because the shooting out at VTech was DIRECTLY result of libruls.

Just like Susan Smith in 1994 who drowned her two children in S. Carolina - incidents like these would be avoided according to Newt if you just vote Republican:

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natco...umns/112794.htm

And when Foley had to resign, you see according to Newt, Conservatives didn't want to stop Foley's little boy habits because "they would have been accused of gay bashing":

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216962,00.html

You see, libruls are to blame for everything, according to Newt.

And of course, let's not leave out the ghettos either:

quote:

�We should replace bilingual education with immersion in English so people learn the common language of the country and they learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto,� http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/p...atinos-for.html I like a guy who wants neverending war and wants to take direct action on Iran and North Korea: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3898804/ But then again, this is a bit strange - he thought is was an "enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country (Iraq) after June of 2003"?: http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbc.../604110311/1001 Hmmm, that doesn't quite mesh well now, does it? And let's not forget about some of those darn "ethics" problems our dear Newt faced when he was in Congress: [QUOTE]�The House ethics committee recommended last night that House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) face an unprecedented reprimand from his colleagues and pay $300,000 in additional sanctions after concluding that his use of tax-deductible money for political purposes and inaccurate information supplied to investigators represented �intentional or . . . reckless� disregard of House rules.� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/011897.htm

quote:

�The heart of the ethics committee case against House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) involves his use of charitable organizations to subsidize his partisan political activities� Gingrich and his top advisers have tried repeatedly to use tax-deductible donations to help promote their political goals� [T]he availability of groups that could take tax-deductible donations was integral to his ultimately successful plan to wrest control of the House from the Democrats.� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/010797.htm

quote:

�In his final opportunity to defend his client Friday night before the House ethics committee, an attorney for Newt Gingrich conceded that the speaker had made �glaringly inconsistent� statements to the panel�s investigative subcommittee about a politically oriented college course financed with tax-exempt funds.� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/011997.htm

quote:

�The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House�s 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.� The House voted 395-28 to approve the punishment. �Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House,� said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI). �If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment.� http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...ries/012297.htm

Swell guy that Newt. Full of ethics and worthwhile thoughts.

Why, tell me why we shouldn't vote for a guy who thinks neverending war is okay, invading and pre-emptively attacking all countries that might be threatening because we need to:

quote:

"show the planet that you're tiny and we're not." http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Tran...c2-b44e1f3c9657

Go Newt! Show the world your bucket full o' moral and ethical authority!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You mean all those bills that they voted on, those bills in the first 100 days that had the broad majority of public support, in your words "didn't do shit"? Hmmm, perhaps you're right, considering it's up to the FUCKING PRESIDENT TO SIGN THOSE BILLS, AIN'T IT CHAMP?

you mean all those two?

this "do nothing Congress" managed to pass all of two Bills in their first 100 days.

H.J.Res.20 - Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (02/15/07)

NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 (04/10/07)

whoopty frikken doooo!!!!!!!!

Shaolin_Z, our arguments aren't really getting anywhere. But I want to know your motives. I think it will help me understand your motives so I can better address the conversation.

Here's your public interview:

Please answer each question with a "YES", "NO", or "OTHER" and support each answer if you wish. Regardless, you MUST type in "YES", "NO", or "OTHER." Please answer EVERY question. Also, please don't argue semantics or relevance. If you do not understand the question in and of itself, please tell me.

1. Overall, do you support what Ron Paul did below? If you support some but not all of what he did, please explain WHY.

quote:

(1)The Federal Marriage Amendment would enshrine discrimination into the U.S. Constitution by defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman and prohibiting federal and state laws from conferring same-sex couples with marital status and �the legal incidents thereof.� The amendment would thereby endanger civil unions and domestic partnership benefits. The House of Representatives voted on the amendment on July 18, 2006, needing a two-thirds majority to approve the amendment. The amendment failed to reach a two-thirds majority by a vote of 236- 187-1 (Roll Call Vote 378, 2nd Session). Ron Paul voted to block gay marriage. (2) Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., offered an amendment to the Child Safety Act (H.R. 3132), adding the provisions of the HRC-supported Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act which would give the federal government jurisdiction to help local law enforcement confront hate violence based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender and disability. Ron Paul voted NO. (3) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation introduced May 26, 2005, that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach serious, violent hate crimes perpetrated because of the �actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or disability� of the victim. As of Sept. 29, 2006, the measure had 160 co-sponsors: Democrats 149; Republicans 10; Independents 1. Ron Paul voted NO. (4) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation that would repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual service people, and allow them to serve openly in the military. Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this. (5) Members of Congress were asked to co-sponsor legislation (formerly called the Permanent Partners Immigration Act) introduced June 21, 2005, that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents the same immigration benefits legal spouses of U.S. residents enjoy. Ron Paul didn't co-sponsor this.

2. If Ron Paul were to do all of the above, but were to replace each word "gay" with "Muslim," would you support his decision?

3. Do you think that gay people are entitled to every equal right that you as a heterosexual Muslim have?

3a. Do you think gay people should have the right to get married? If not, do you think they are entitled to an alternative, but equal status (i.e. civil unions)?

3b. Do you think that gay people should be allowed to serve openly gay in the military.

3c. Do you think that on top of gender, creed, race, ethnicity (and others I'm forgetting), the gov't should add "sexual orientation" to the list of what NOT to discriminate against in the work place?

3d. If someone is physically attacked based solely on the fact that they are gay, do you consider it a hate crime? If not, do you consider any attack based on race/ethnity a hate crime?

3e. Do you think people should be denied the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation?

4. If I were to have my way and gay people would magically be granted all equal rights, would we be arguing in this thread?

5. (Open question, you don't have to answer yes-no-other here)
Whose fault do you think it is that gay people don't have equal rights? Gay people (like me)? Republicans (like Ron Paul)? Or other?

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel If you truly believe that openly defrauding the American taxpayers by starting a war that has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, over a trillion dollars, and totally destabilized a region of the world that was already on shaky ground is somehow less disgraceful than lying about having sex with an ugly fat chick, then I cannot help but feel sorry for you. I disliked Bill Clinton almost as much as I dislike Bush. But the whole idea of impeaching someone for lying about something in a civil lawsuit that the supreme court had to agree was even allowable; and then to be told he was being impeached for perjury in regards to a statement he made that was contradicted by personal wire taps that would have been inadmissable in any court of law; all of this done at the end of a 4 year long investigation that had turned up absolutely nothing worth prosecuting anyone over in court was a sick perversion of the constitutional process. But it did its job, it made the whole idea of beginning impeachment proceedings so unpalatable to the American people that, today, a president can do things that even Nixon would not have thought of doing and know that he will never have to pay the constitutional price for his high crimes and misdemeanors. MrS

Clinton signed a declaration 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein by all means, a so called "Iraq Liberation Act" which was a blueprint for Iraq invasion , not to mention that clinton democrats bombed iraq to bits for decade and he supported invasion so there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq

quote:

Originally posted by erdega there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq

actually there is a huge difference, but we won't get into that here.

The Iraq Liberation Act
October 31, 1998

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

October 31, 1998

STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT

Today I am signing into law H.R. 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers.

Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life.

My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership.

In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government.

On October 21, 1998, I signed into law the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, which made $8 million available for assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition. This assistance is intended to help the democratic opposition unify, work together more effectively, and articulate the aspirations of the Iraqi people for a pluralistic, participa--tory political system that will include all of Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious groups. As required by the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY 1998 (Public Law 105-174), the Department of State submitted a report to the Congress on plans to establish a program to support the democratic opposition. My Administration, as required by that statute, has also begun to implement a program to compile information regarding allegations of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Iraq's current leaders as a step towards bringing to justice those directly responsible for such acts.

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 provides additional, discretionary authorities under which my Administration can act to further the objectives I outlined above. There are, of course, other important elements of U.S. policy. These include the maintenance of U.N. Security Council support efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons and missile programs and economic sanctions that continue to deny the regime the means to reconstitute those threats to international peace and security. United States support for the Iraqi opposition will be carried out consistent with those policy objectives as well. Similarly, U.S. support must be attuned to what the opposition can effectively make use of as it develops over time. With those observations, I sign H.R. 4655 into law.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

October 31, 1998.

quote:

Originally posted by erdega Clinton signed a declaration 1998 to remove Saddam Hussein by all means, a so called "Iraq Liberation Act" which was a blueprint for Iraq invasion , not to mention that clinton democrats bombed iraq to bits for decade and he supported invasion so there is no difference between Clinton and Bush on Iraq

Patently false.

The Iraq Liberation Act was NOT a means of future military invasion:

quote:

President Clinton's first explicit call for a "new government" in Baghdad and his pledge to implement a new plan for arming opponents of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein heartened opposition leaders yesterday. But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy for overthrowing it. Senior administration officials said Clinton's words were intended to signal an "intensification" of support for a broad array of Iraqi opposition groups and in that sense represented a change in policy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...iraq111698b.htm

Let's make sure we understand the difference:

quote:

But Clinton's comments appeared to signal more of a heightened political effort to destabilize the Iraqi regime over time than any immediate military strategy for overthrowing it.

And the bombs that Clinton did on Saddam was a direct means of containment as drawn out by his predecessor, Bush Sr., as well as his targeted attacks of containment on Saddam's WMD programs:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stor...ts/clinton.html

To which according to the Duelfer Report, such means and methods worked in keeping Saddam from creating any future WMDs.

The stark difference between Clinton and Bush is simple: who invaded Iraq? If Clinton had indeed decided to weigh ALL of the intelligence given to him about Saddam's WMDs stockpiles and al Qaeda connections, had indeed decided to create a cute little separate intelligence branch called the Office of Special Plans to which bypassed CIA and State Dept. intelligence groups, and handwaved away any and all intelligence that this current Administration did in order to bolster their case for invasion, then Clinton would certainly have my anger directed towards him in the same manner.

But now if memory serves, Clinton didn't do these things now, did he?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 But now if memory serves, Clinton didn't do these things now, did he?

Lewinski aside, he reflexively launched a couple hundred cruise missles into two different countries on "questionable" intel after the Embassy bombings and proved to be a complete disaster.

he left the U.S.S. Cole high and dry b/c he was near term.

gotta love that guy.

MisterOpus1,

You are a joke In your book you have to be a popular president and take the polls seriously to know you have been doing the right thing as president

I love these useless polls! As I said buddy sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions. You are the type of American that liked how clinton operated... he went to the Washington Post and put polls up to know what Americans wanted and then he proceeded to do w.e the results he got A JOKE! And you know he did this MANY times...

Moving on... no buddy I am not a rep nor a dem nor an independent etc... I am an American but at this time leaning more to the Rep side, wtf ever happened to men like Lincoln and Roosevelt? Dude if your party had a well suited candidate that dosent talk shit all day and that dosent focuse at w.e the polls says just to use the results to his advantage to get to the presidency, ill def vote for him until now all they do is talk and talk and echo what the polls say and bitch about the spending, money to them that can be used to save the fish and the penguins in Alaska, money that can be used to to promote more welfare among americans. If thats your answer for all those problems, go ahead and get down for them every time they come by your town to tell you what you want to hear.

You know what? I have come to stage that I feel stupid talking to you.. and oh buddy

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 So's your grammar.

Fixed!

Hey Shaolin, I think our argument just got smuthered by MisterOpus1 and LatinLover.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson got smuthered by MisterOpus1 and LatinLover.

sounds hot!

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Hey Shaolin, I think our argument just got smuthered by MisterOpus1 and LatinLover. quote: Originally posted by Q5echo sounds hot!

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover MisterOpus1, You are a joke In your book you have to be a popular president and take the polls seriously to know you have been doing the right thing as president

LatinLover,

You love "Hahha" faces lots, don't you?

They are fun!

Let me try!:

Weeeee!

All this time I didn't realize how much fun I had been missing from using Haha faces! Alright!!!

quote:

I love these useless polls!

Raise your hands, folks, if you weren't about to see the polls being dismissed line?

Anyone?

Hmmm, guess that majority sentiment thingy really doesn't suit you well, does it?

quote:

As I said buddy sometimes our leaders must take unpopular decisions.

How about making simple logical ones?

quote:

You are the type of American that liked how clinton operated... he went to the Washington Post and put polls up to know what Americans wanted and then he proceeded to do w.e the results he got A JOKE! And you know he did this MANY times...

How Clinton operated with polls is, wait, what was your point again?

I'm really having a hard time trying to follow you here. I post polls that demonstrated that my sentiments are in line with the majority of the public.

Are you actually going to address that at all?

I also posted a poll that demonstrated how terribly "unpopular" President Clinton was, especially in comparison to the President we have in office today.

And your refutation is that Clinton used polls to drive his agenda? Huh?

Please tell me how that addressed anything I said. Be specific.

quote:

Moving on... no buddy I am not a rep nor a dem nor an independent etc... I am an American but at this time leaning more to the Rep side, wtf ever happened to men like Lincoln and Roosevelt?

What indeed. Amazing how we both share the same sentiments, especially how things have been run over the past 6 years, don't cha think?

quote:

Dude if your party had a well suited candidate that dosent talk shit all day and that dosent focuse at w.e the polls says just to use the results to his advantage to get to the presidency, ill def vote for him until now all they do is talk and talk and echo what the polls say and bitch about the spending, money to them that can be used to save the fish and the penguins in Alaska, money that can be used to to promote more welfare among americans. If thats your answer for all those problems, go ahead and get down for them every time they come by your town to tell you what you want to hear. You know what? I have come to stage that I feel stupid talking to you.. and oh buddy

Well gosh, that's sure sad. I suppose one day you'll actually address some of the points I made rather than give me empty unsupported rhetoric about how horrible one party is versus the wonderful other party. Suppose, just suppose if you decide to actually have a debate with me, that you'll bring your issues of contention WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE to back you up? Because thus far, you have done nothing but shoot down Clinton (which strangely, last I checked he isn't running for President, but I've defended his record WITHOUT any supporting counterevidence from you), and accuse me of having extremist views by categorizing me with Michael Moore.

Now, if you want to discuss philosophically WHY I feel the way I do about my stances and how they may or may not be in line with current candidates, I'm more than willing to go that route. However that was NOT what you directed towards me earlier. Rather, you were attempting to generalize my viewpoints as extremist, to which I demonstrated how my views were anything but extremist (unless you consider the majority American sentiment "extremist", but then again you discount polls altogether, right?). So please stop with the bait and switch routine in your argument and debate in good faith (and be a bit more logically consistent while you're at it).

quote:

Fixed!

That's a start.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo you mean all those two? this "do nothing Congress" managed to pass all of two Bills in their first 100 days. H.J.Res.20 - Revised Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2007 (02/15/07) NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 (04/10/07) whoopty frikken doooo!!!!!!!!

First of all, my mistake - not 100 days but 100 hours.

With that said, the "do nothing Congress" has a wee bit of trouble passing bills that Bush is likely going to veto, such as the stem cell bill (Bush vetoed it once already, his ONLY veto ever), the 9/11 Commission recommendations (Bush does not follow these nor will he ever, thus despite both House and Senate passing this will likely get vetoed by Bush), negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare patients (despite Bush's rhetoric about free-markets, this is a slap in the face on that idea and will likely face his veto), and the reversal of oil and gas royalties which in essence is nothing but corporate welfare to which Bush would likely veto hands down. The only other one that's being negotiated that will likely go through is the minimum wage hike, and that was only after the Senate attached on tax breaks for smaller businesses.

The other bill passed by the House such as the federal subsidized loan interest rate reduction is still being negotiated by the Senate, to which I have no idea where Bush would stand on that.

Now this is the context to which these bills need to be understood. The House in its first 100 hours did exactly what I mentioned by passing bills that the majority of the people support. Granted, some of those bills get caught up in the Senate and Committees after passing the Senate as I pointed out, but there are bills that are not so popular with Bush that will likely receive his veto. That is not to say, however, that bills worthy of the majority American sentiment went nowhere - so again, how on earth could that fault lie on the Democratic Congress when they are/will receive a veto by the unpopular president with a minority opinion on these issues?

And let's also not forget one small little thing that's completely and willfully escaped the GOP Congress over the past six years, something that was painfully needed..........

......oversight.......

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Lewinski aside, he reflexively launched a couple hundred cruise missles into two different countries on "questionable" intel after the Embassy bombings and proved to be a complete disaster.

Hmmm, that must be why Gingrich claimed Clinton did the right thing by bombing those sites.

You know, one of our dear friend's presidential candidate favorites?

quote:

he left the U.S.S. Cole high and dry b/c he was near term. gotta love that guy.

The U.S.S. Cole bombing was on October 12th, 2000.

Now you do remember WHEN we finally learned with definitely who was behind the bombing, right? According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA had preliminary findings that al Qaeda was behind the attack on Dec. 21st, 2000. However, those findings were made with no "definitive conclusion":

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff...statement_8.pdf

So guess who became President when things became "definitive"? (Hint: it wasn't Clinton).

I'm sorry, you were saying something about leaving the USS Cole high and dry?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Hey Shaolin, I think our argument just got smuthered by MisterOpus1 and LatinLover.

Nah, I'm just taking time to reply since I got sick of repeating myself and going in circles. I didn't even know about Ron Paul's stance on the issues you're concerned about until you brought it up, which is why I was somewhat (nuetral tone) irritated when you posted questioning my "motives?" Shouldn't it be rather obvious from my posts? I'll spell it out in case you missed it somehow:

1. The end of the preemptive war policy and fradulent war on terror.
   
2. Roll back tyrannical and totally unconstituional legislation, the Partriot Act, Military Commisions Act, and Detainee Bills particularly.
   
3. Possibly (and hopefully) abolish the Federal Resrerve and IRS.
   
4. Stop expansion of the executive bransh which by now literally has dictorial powers.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Nah, I'm just taking time to reply since I got sick of repeating myself and going in circles.

Yeah tell me about it. Maybe I need to learn your Arabic language so you can better understand me.

quote:

I didn't even know about Ron Paul's stance on the issues you're concerned about until you brought it up, which is why I was somewhat (nuetral tone) irritated when you posted questioning my "motives?" Shouldn't it be rather obvious from my posts?

Rather obvious from you posts? Not really. You went on so many tangents and still haven't answered my questions. But if you say you are neutral, I guess I have no choice but to just drop the subject, except with the less-than-nautral tone you gave throughout your posts, such as calling my issues stupid and trivial. Fyi, that's not a nautral tone, that makes you smell like a slut-crusted total-un-neutral bitch.

Buuuuuuut I understand my tone was harsh to begin with and I apologize for that.

quote:

I'll spell it out in case you missed it somehow: The end of the preemptive war policy and fradulent war on terror. Roll back tyrannical and totally unconstituional legislation, the Partriot Act, Military Commisions Act, and Detainee Bills particularly. Possibly (and hopefully) abolish the Federal Resrerve and IRS. Stop expansion of the executive bransh which by now literally has dictorial powers.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

quote:

I might get to your specific questions later.

Really? They're simple Yes/No questions. Or do you not like the questions because they are direct and you can't run around them with passive talk and tangents? Common, answer the questions. I wanna know how much of a bigot you really are.

I'll post them again for you:

1. Overall, do you support what Ron Paul did (refer to ALL 5 of my points on page 1 or page 7)? If you support some but not all of what he did, please explain WHY.

3. Do you think that gay people are entitled to every equal right that you as a heterosexual Muslim have?

3a. Do you think gay people should have the right to get married? If not, do you think they are entitled to an alternative, but equal status (i.e. civil unions)?

3b. Do you think that gay people should be allowed to serve openly gay in the military.

3c. Do you think that on top of gender, creed, race, ethnicity (and others I'm forgetting), the gov't should add "sexual orientation" to the list of what NOT to discriminate against in the work place?

3d. If someone is physically attacked based solely on the fact that they are gay, do you consider it a hate crime? If not, do you consider any attack based on race/ethnity a hate crime?

3e. Do you think people should be denied the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation?

4. If I were to have my way and gay people would magically be granted all equal rights, would we be arguing in this thread?

5. (Open question, you don't have to answer yes-no-other here)
Whose fault do you think it is that gay people don't have equal rights? Gay people (like me)? Republicans (like Ron Paul)? Or other?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson 1. Overall, do you support what Ron Paul did (refer to ALL 5 of my points on page 1 or page 7)? If you support some but not all of what he did, please explain WHY.

Can I answer these questions as well? Well here it goes.

quote:

3. Do you think that gay people are entitled to every equal right that you as a heterosexual Muslim have?

That's the thing. Even being a straight Muslim male you still have the same rights as a white man. And no I think gays shouldn't have equal rights.

quote:

3a. Do you think gay people should have the right to get married? If not, do you think they are entitled to an alternative, but equal status (i.e. civil unions)?

Sure they can get married but not in Churches

quote:

3b. Do you think that gay people should be allowed to serve openly gay in the military.

No, b/c the people in the military are normally conservative extremists or minorities who have no other option.

quote:

3c. Do you think that on top of gender, creed, race, ethnicity (and others I'm forgetting), the gov't should add "sexual orientation" to the list of what NOT to discriminate against in the work place?

Why? What's a homo doing outside of the closet in the first place?

quote:

3d. If someone is physically attacked based solely on the fact that they are gay, do you consider it a hate crime? If not, do you consider any attack based on race/ethnity a hate crime?

Yes, it's a hate crime.

quote:

3e. Do you think people should be denied the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation?

No, I am all for them adopting.

quote:

4. If I were to have my way and gay people would magically be granted all equal rights, would we be arguing in this thread?

Yes, it's the internet. People who would normally keep their mouths shut in real live would be spilling the way they feel safely behind their screens.

quote:

5. (Open question, you don't have to answer yes-no-other here) Whose fault do you think it is that gay people don't have equal rights? Gay people (like me)? Republicans (like Ron Paul)? Or other?

I think it's your fault.

You will never have the same rights as blacks do until you make a movement demanding to be equal. Gays have a lot of spending power more than the minorities(separtely) do. So stop buying and see how businesses start to hurt and watch them support you so that you guys now start buying their products.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 the 9/11 Commission recommendations (Bush does not follow these nor will he ever, thus despite both House and Senate passing this will likely get vetoed by Bush)

sweeping generalization. he's adopted some recomendations and has opted out of others. none of it was binding even though you think they are or should be. campaigning on the whimzy that the Donks would implement all of the recomendations, they have completely dropped the Congressional reform component of the 9/11 recomendations. why?

quote:

negotiating lower drug prices for Medicare patients (despite Bush's rhetoric about free-markets, this is a slap in the face on that idea and will likely face his veto), and the reversal of oil and gas royalties which in essence is nothing but corporate welfare to which Bush would likely veto hands down.

can you tell me when and if prescription drug legislation has even been voted on?

same goes for Student Loan Interest Rate Legislation, Minimum Wage Hike, Stem Cell Research ect.. all have Bi-partisaned majority support WHERE THE F**K IS IT?

oversight is that important huh? trumps all else huh?
oversight, it's a charade. the Donks have put all their chips on a charade. to put the criminalization of politics in the hands of Henry Waxman and Chuck Shumer above the not only the needs of the American public but their campaign promises as well.

this is one of the most feckless majorities in the history of modern American politics.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Hmmm, that must be why Gingrich claimed Clinton did the right thing by bombing those sites.

don't care too much what the Speaker said years ago really. bottom line is he acted like any Executive has historically or presently for that matter. can he be faulted? of course.

MisterOpus1,

I told you I wont waste my time with you, engaging in a debate with you is like feeling stupid.

You are hopeless! Michael Moore's film have clouded your mind, you are hopeless. Please come out of the dark and see the light.

I dont need to go to websites like you do; you chose leftist writers that all they do is bash Bush. All my facts are in my brain I dont need to echo what other people say. Ill challenge you to a live debate and make sure you take your laptop with you so you can have a chance

My overall point: The Dems are a joke, they have the majority in congress, they havent done shit. All they do is play hard ball with the President. They are fill with empty promises, you said that in Nov. Americans voted for change right? Okay... we see that change going on in our strategic military approach. AMERICANS DID NOT VOTE FOR FAILURE= WITHDRAWAL

quote:

Originally posted by LatinLover MisterOpus1, I told you I wont waste my time with you, engaging in a debate with you is like feeling stupid.

Apparently you don't need my help in that category.

But even if that were true, by replying right now are you not contradicting yourself?

quote:

You are hopeless!

Funny, I was about to say the same thing about your argument, considering you haven't supported it with any verifiable evidence up to this point.

quote:

Michael Moore's film have clouded your mind, you are hopeless.

I'm wondering if it would come as a surprise to you that I never really cared much for that guy?

What is it with your fixation with Michael Moore? Have I brought him up with any of my points or references so far?

Are you actually going to try to debate in good faith and cease with the Hannity/Limbaugh asinine sweeping generalizations yet?

quote:

Please come out of the dark and see the light.

Alright then, enlighten me. What parts do you disagree with that I have said thus far? Be specific, and support your answers with evidence.

quote:

I dont need to go to websites like you do; you chose leftist writers that all they do is bash Bush.

You realize you just created a common ad hominem logical fallacy, right?

All examples I have cited are supported by evidence. In my previous posts I cited polls from various different sources including your favorite poll, Rasmussen, and I cited well-documented investigations from the Washington Post, NYTimes, and AP press that are to this point unrefuted by this Administration or anyone else for a simple reason - they are based on our current intelligence.

Now, the sources I did cite that are what you may call "biased" are:

1. Glenn Greenwald (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/...-terrorism.html), who if you go to the website he has you will see in his story that he cites well-known documents and stories to support his point.

2. American Progress (http://www.americanprogress.org/iss...les/b24889.html), which again if you go to that website will find all points made about this Administration's efforts to ignore any counterevidence against their claims on WMDs supported by well-known documents (and links to those documents and stories).

3. Seymour Hersh (http://www.newyorker.com/archive/20...7/031027fa_fact), who's reputation is well-known for his breakout stories back in Vietnam and has multiple inside connections in this and previous Administrations.

4. Downing Street Memo (http://www.downingstreetmemo.org), which the memo itself is undeniable even to this Administration.

5. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org), which is a left-leaning group but the information they cite comes from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Now, if you have something SPECIFIC to argue about here in regards to the sources I cite, then support your point against mine with evidence.

Otherwise, stop wasting my time.

quote:

All my facts are in my brain I dont need to echo what other people say. Ill challenge you to a live debate and make sure you take your laptop with you so you can have a chance

I live in Lawrence, Kansas. If you're truly interested in that, I'm more than willing to make time after my finals week, which will be the third week of May. Please PM me if you're interested.

Otherwise, do me and everyone else here a favor, debate in good faith HERE with supporting evidence for your points and stop wasting my time.

quote:

My overall point: The Dems are a joke,

I'm sure glad it's because you say so. And you've supported that point oh so well thus far.

Wait, no you haven't.

quote:

they have the majority in congress, they havent done shit. All they do is play hard ball with the President. They are fill with empty promises, you said that in Nov. Americans voted for change right? Okay... we see that change going on in our strategic military approach. AMERICANS DID NOT VOTE FOR FAILURE= WITHDRAWAL

Uhh, Americans voted to get us the hell out of Iraq, champ. Sorry to keep breaking that news to you, but the polls and the votes clearly demonstrate that.

As for what the Democrats have and have not done, I spoke about this in a previous post here, so scroll back and re-read it. Just because they haven't voted on things that our dear dipshit leader won't agree on and will likely veto doesn't mean they haven't done anything. The burden does not lie on them since they are doing what the majority of Americans want.

Do you understand this simple logic?

Try for me. Try read hard. Congress votes for things that the people want. The President will likely veto those things because he doesn't like them. But for some reason, YOU blame Congress for not doing shit?

I must say, you're not doing a very good job with your argument here, champ. You really need to consider some simple debating skills before blabbing your mouth off here. And as I said before, the best place for you to start is to support your arguments with evidence.

Otherwise, stop wasting my fucking time, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Yeah tell me about it. Maybe I need to learn your Arabic language so you can better understand me.

Sure, whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Rather obvious from you posts? Not really. You went on so many tangents and still haven't answered my questions. But if you say you are neutral, I guess I have no choice but to just drop the subject, except with the less-than-nautral tone you gave throughout your posts, such as calling my issues stupid and trivial. Fyi, that's not a nautral tone, that makes you smell like a slut-crusted total-un-neutral bitch.

I feel no need to ease your curiosity or feed your insecurities, especially considering the way you're acting. I considered answering your questions earlier, but now I certainly don't feel like it.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Buuuuuuut I understand my tone was harsh to begin with and I apologize for that.

Harsh? No, more like offensive. I've been guilty of that in the past so I won't rip on you for that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I'm not disagreeing with you.

Ok.

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Really? They're simple Yes/No questions. Or do you not like the questions because they are direct and you can't run around them with passive talk and tangents? Common, answer the questions. I wanna know how much of a bigot you really are.

Right. What exactly makes me a bigot again?

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson I'll post them again for you: 1. Overall, do you support what Ron Paul did (refer to ALL 5 of my points on page 1 or page 7)? If you support some but not all of what he did, please explain WHY. 3. Do you think that gay people are entitled to every equal right that you as a heterosexual Muslim have? 3a. Do you think gay people should have the right to get married? If not, do you think they are entitled to an alternative, but equal status (i.e. civil unions)? 3b. Do you think that gay people should be allowed to serve openly gay in the military. 3c. Do you think that on top of gender, creed, race, ethnicity (and others I'm forgetting), the gov't should add "sexual orientation" to the list of what NOT to discriminate against in the work place? 3d. If someone is physically attacked based solely on the fact that they are gay, do you consider it a hate crime? If not, do you consider any attack based on race/ethnity a hate crime? 3e. Do you think people should be denied the right to adopt based on their sexual orientation? 4. If I were to have my way and gay people would magically be granted all equal rights, would we be arguing in this thread? 5. (Open question, you don't have to answer yes-no-other here) Whose fault do you think it is that gay people don't have equal rights? Gay people (like me)? Republicans (like Ron Paul)? Or other?

If you want/wanted me to answer your questions, perhaps you should have reconsidered your tone. Make whatever assumptions you want about me, your assuming so doesn't make them valid. This is exactly why I didn't want to get in to this conversation in the first place. Most people tend to make all these stupid assumptions followed by equally irrelevant conclusions, when you have a different opinion that the one they're culturally indoctrinated with that is. I suggest you change your tone if you interested in dicussing this any further.

EDIT: BTW, you do realize how far off topic you've gotton?

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z The end of the preemptive war policy and fradulent war on terror.

+1

quote:

Roll back tyrannical and totally unconstituional legislation, the Partriot Act, Military Commisions Act, and Detainee Bills particularly.

+1

quote:

Possibly (and hopefully) abolish the Federal Resrerve and IRS.

Damn son, you had me for a second.... no, as long as daddy makes the ducks with the IRS, then hell no!!

quote:

Stop expansion of the executive bransh which by now literally has dictorial powers.

+1

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.