|
Hillary's complicity (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
If my reasoning is not sound, explain. |
Why bother? You tear one President down for dodging the Vietnam War, and lionize the other. I'd call that HIGHLY selective reasoning.
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Right now it's obvious you're the only one in the room laughing, which makes you appear a little foolish. |
If you say so! :haha:
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 And you seem to be the typical Bush-apologist, that scary shrinking minority of Americans who can't seem to get a firm grip on reality. Oh well. |
I'm not a Republican, but I lean more in the direction of the G.O.P. over the Democrats. But anyone with common sense can deduce that the "Bush lied, people Died" mantra is pure anti-Republican hype. I've said it before, but I guess I'll have to say it again; Why would a President make a claim like that KNOWING that it was a lie, and KNOWING that once the war was over, he'd be proven a liar? IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN! They thought the WMD's were there, but they were wrong. It's not brain surgery. It's not some grand conspiracy. It is exactly as they said it was; A mistake. But not a malicious one.
Now Clinton fibbing on the stand...THAT is a form malicious lying! ;) |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I don't think anyone will be going down on Hilary in the Oval Office. Maybe if she was 30 years younger... :tongue2 |
***swoosh***
hear that? that's the sound of my hand going over my head. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Why bother? You tear one President down for dodging the Vietnam War, and lionize the other. I'd call that HIGHLY selective reasoning. |
You really should bother a bit more than that. I restate what I said about Billy Boy:
| quote: | | I hold little loyalty to Clinton |
Hmm, strange way to "lionize" a President, I suppose. However he has given his reason for dodging that war, to which neither Cheney nor Bush has stated in any rational, coherent manner why they chose in their own manner to do the same. There's nothing selective about it - merely historical fact.
| quote: | | I'm not a Republican, but I lean more in the direction of the G.O.P. over the Democrats. But anyone with common sense can deduce that the "Bush lied, people Died" mantra is pure hype. I've said before, but I guess I'll have to say it again; Why would a President make a claim like that KNOWING that it was a lie, and KNOWING that once the war was over, he'd be proven a liar? IT WOULD NOT HAPPEN! They thought the WMD's were there, but they were wrong. It's not brain surgery. It's not some grand conspiracy. It is exactly as they said it was; A mistake. But not a malicious one. |
I don't recall making this argument towards you in this thread. Was this directed towards me or someone else? My point was more centered towards the Vietnam history of both presidents and VP, not on the more current events of Iraq.
| quote: | | Now Clinton fibbing on the stand...THAT is a form malicious lying! ;) |
Again, I don't recall making this argument towards you in this thread. Was this directed towards me or someone else?
I have my opinions on this, of course, and I've made them well known here in the past, but I don't recall making those opinions here. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
The world often laughs at America for being totally ing ignorant about anything beyond football, and hence being incredibly naive to and extent that's often unbelievable... not because of whatever else you're referring to. |
Not true. The preoccupation with the sex lives of their public officials has america in a very special place when compared to comparable western democracies. For the most part, the rest of the world doesn't care. Which is why I say we laugh about it (though honestly I don’t find it particularly funny, more backwards and antiquated).
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Plus, making a big deal over lying about a BJ and grounds for impeachement is kind of sad compared to lying to go to war and devestate a nation! |
Um, have you read anything else ive said in this thread, ive posted that sentiment already, almost verbatim!
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I know you don't anyone in the goverment or intelligence agency was complicit in 9-11, but to ignore PNAC, their goals of American Hegemony and total global dominance, isn't exactly a theory or overly critical analysis of their actions. Their (NeoCon) policy and words are actually consistant in that respect. . |
Absolutely. 911 was a wonderful excuse for them to take advantage of the damaged american psyche, ive never once denied the opportunism of the neo cons.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
There's two things I've realized that drive you nuts, one would be even the slightest mention of religion, and the second would be skepticism/criticism of those in power. |
Youre half right. I don’t mind religion per se, or religious philosophy per se. or religious people per se. I just hate the influence religion has in the public sphere and government(s) and governing, and I don’t think you disagree with me there. I do not think people's unprovavable superstitions should be valid talking points in political theory (unless we're talking about understanding religious influence in modern political thought). I don’t know why you think I have a problem with criticism of those in power, the single and ONLY talking point where ill defend the bush administration is 911, for reasons you and I have discussed to death. I abhor the administration and view it as a blight on america and cant wait for their day to be over. I do have bias towards democratic institutions over "grass root" organisations that do not suffer the scrutiny or possess the representative responsibility, but also feel that an open and questioned government is a cornerstone of successful democracy. Just because I don’t champion the cause of every nutter with an axe to grind doesn't mean I don’t encourage skepticism, its just that most thing you and others seem to classify as "skepticism" I see as "disingenuous unsubstantiated nonsense". Yes, I favour political analysis from established corners over asshats with webpages, but that's mainly due to my schooling and my respect for those that possess an intellectual honesty I often find lacking in other areas. If these asshats made more compelling arguments, and weren't constantly manipulating or misusing ambiguous evidence, they would have my ear more quickly (or successfully).
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
But loosing your mind (which you didn't really do here but do have a tendancy to do quite a bit) or pure derision doesn't really help your cause or your argument a whole lot, and certainly not you personaly. |
But im not really here for a "cause". I treat the PDD like I would a fun discussion with like-minded people over a beer at the pub. Where I assure you, if someone was coming out with nonsense they would be treated with the same level of derision. I did my time writing academic prose, this is to fill in time and (hopefully) learn something from the numerous people in here that are smarter or know more than me. Laughing, as I did here, at america's puritan obsession with sex or the private life of a spurned spouse, is exactly what this topic deserved. Honestly, who really cares about her private life, and how she decided to deal with her husband's infidelity? I would have thought the private life of a person (whomever they are) would be sacrosanct to someone like yourself? As a general rule we don't tolerate such an obsession here in Australia, and in the case of bill clinton, I think it was serious overkill and a waste of resources on something that was meaningless in regards to the good of the nation. Bill should never have been put in a place where he had to lie.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Reactive responses don't generally help much. Yes, I know I'm guilty of being reactive at times too, but at least I'm pissed off for legitimate reasons (war, bloodshed, opression, uter hypocrisy and injustice), things like that, you know, that should piss anyone off but apparently that's not the case. Just a though. |
I find intellectual dishonesty is just as good a reason to get pissed off. Its very important to me. I care just as much about those things as you do, its just that my perspective is often different. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
***swoosh***
hear that? that's the sound of my hand going over my head. |
lol...it is a helluva visual, isn't it? ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
You really should bother a bit more than that. I restate what I said about Billy Boy:
Hmm, strange way to "lionize" a President, I suppose. However he has given his reason for dodging that war, to which neither Cheney nor Bush has stated in any rational, coherent manner why they chose in their own manner to do the same. There's nothing selective about it - merely historical fact. |
So if Bush came out and said; "I dodged the Vietnam War because I just didn't want to go", you'd respect that??
| quote: | | Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I don't recall making this argument towards you in this thread. Was this directed towards me or someone else? My point was more centered towards the Vietnam history of both presidents and VP, not on the more current events of Iraq. |
It was directed mostly at Raisin, but a little bit at you for calling me a "Bush Apologist". What exactly does he need apologizing for? We're talking about lying here. When did Bush lie? |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
because i support Obama and this is the democratic primary. McCain will get his dues in due time.;)
srsly, somebody should swift boat Hillary with this. throw out baseless allegations that can't be disproved. raise many questions. split her core supporters. i think it has legs.
what did she know? when did she know it? did she conspire with the president to lie before the grand jury? what role did she play in the president's decision to pay paula jones money to withdraw her sexual harassment suit?
why does she look the other way when it's politically convenient? taking this further, would she act the same way if she held presidential power. would she put political convenience ahead of principle? (recall the US embrace of sadam hussein in the iraq/iran war.) |
That's just sad, and would be completely demeaning to both the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. You are the kind of person you see campaigns distance themselves from as rapidly as possible. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Why bother? You tear one President down for dodging the Vietnam War, and lionize the other. I'd call that HIGHLY selective reasoning.
|
I'm no Clinton apologist either, but I'd say this is an area that is a HUGE criticism of Bush.
Clinton dodged the war on ideological grounds (he opposes war), and his Presidency was consistent with that - he was almost too timid for my tastes in foreign policy, particular in the case of military interventions.
Bush, on the other hand, obviously does not oppose war on any ideological basis, and instead used his dad's affluence to skirt his civic responsibility. Then, upon becoming President, he launched a war that was at best ill-conceived and at worst highly hypocritical.
So Bush proved unwilling to sacrifice himself but more than willing to sacrifice others. Clinton, for all his failings, at least stayed consistent. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
That's just sad, and would be completely demeaning to both the Democratic Party and the Obama campaign. You are the kind of person you see campaigns distance themselves from as rapidly as possible. |
Is it really that sad? That's not far from what a lot of campaigns often come down to.
And if she was complicit in the lie, then she too, as an attorney, was breaking the law.
It's actually a fairly relevant question of someone who wants to be our next President. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
I'm no Clinton apologist either, but I'd say this is an area that is a HUGE criticism of Bush.
Clinton dodged the war on ideological grounds (he opposes war), and his Presidency was consistent with that - he was almost too timid for my tastes in foreign policy, particular in the case of military interventions.
Bush, on the other hand, obviously does not oppose war on any ideological basis, and instead used his dad's affluence to skirt his civic responsibility. Then, upon becoming President, he launched a war that was at best ill-conceived and at worst highly hypocritical.
So Bush proved unwilling to sacrifice himself but more than willing to sacrifice others. Clinton, for all his failings, at least stayed consistent. |
?????
Clinton is anti-war?
Somalia, Kosovo, etc...any of these incursions ring a bell? ;)
Hardly the work of a "consistent" anti-war politician. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Is it really that sad? That's not far from what a lot of campaigns often come down to.
|
Yes - it's true, GOP campaigns often use unsubstantiated allegations like that.
-Max Cleland, who lost multiple limbs in Vietnam, is un-patriotic.
-John McCain has an illegitimate black baby.
-Swift boat.
Spacey is basically saying "if you can't beat them, join them." I refuse to stoop to the GOP level. Sorry. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
?????
Clinton is anti-war?
Somalia, Kosovo, etc...any of these incursions ring a bell? ;)
Hardly the work of a "consistent" anti-war politician. |
Funding Chapter 7 humanitarian interventions is hardly the same as launching a war.
And in any case, I'd say the fact that the US withdrew from Somalia at first blood says a lot about Clinton's anti-war position. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
I did my time writing academic prose, this is to fill in time and (hopefully) learn something from the numerous people in here that are smarter or know more than me. |
Aaawww...thanks Raisin! It's times like this when you're all honest and stuff about your feelings for me, that I get all mushy and break down. How about a nice, big cyber-hug, you ole' warped Liberal, you!  :stongue:
| quote: | | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Bill should never have been put in a place where he had to lie. |
*BUZZER*
Wrong!
The man was accused of sexual harassment and basically what amounts to rape. A serious allegation. Lying to cover it up has nothing to do with his supposed "private life", but has EVERYTHING to do with a literal crime! |
|
|
|
|
