Gbaji wrote:
but then turn right around and say it was Republicans that prevented us from getting into WW2 until almost too late. Um... Who was president? Roosevelt? Yeah. I think so...
Yep, 'twas him alright, who knew he was l33t?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I'd like to thank Bush for bringing Socialism to the EU
I'd like to thank Bush for bringing Socialism to the EUFollow
Yep, 'twas him alright, who knew he was l33t?
I think smash is getting all flustered...
My two favorite quotes, when asked about Clinton's anti terrorist record. Robert Oakley, who served as the ambassador for counterterrorism in the Reagan State Dept. " Overall, I give them high marks. The only major criticism I have is the obession with Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post) Paul Bremer who took over when Oakley left said in response to the Oakley, "I too give him high marks and I think that the Clinton administration correctly focused on Osama bin Laden." (Washington Post)
Clinton who took over office and 20-30 days later is confronted with the bombing of the World Trade Center, gets his **** togehter and procedes to fight terrorism, to such a good degree Reagan's two top anti-terror men, when Clinton is leaving office admire his work. Clinton never once blames GBush Sr. for the bombing of the World Trade Center he just says this is my job it must be done and procedes to arrest and prosecute the people who did it.
Bush takes office 9 months later the World Trade Center is destroyed, he cant blame Clinton enough. Then when he can't find the guy who did it, he goes and picks a fight with his daddy's old nemesis.
It is really easy fighting terror to Clinton is what blaming Clinton is to Bush.
Clinton who took over office and 20-30 days later is confronted with the bombing of the World Trade Center, gets his **** togehter and procedes to fight terrorism, to such a good degree Reagan's two top anti-terror men, when Clinton is leaving office admire his work. Clinton never once blames GBush Sr. for the bombing of the World Trade Center he just says this is my job it must be done and procedes to arrest and prosecute the people who did it.
Bush takes office 9 months later the World Trade Center is destroyed, he cant blame Clinton enough. Then when he can't find the guy who did it, he goes and picks a fight with his daddy's old nemesis.
It is really easy fighting terror to Clinton is what blaming Clinton is to Bush.
I just want to point out a minor fallacy...
I would win this honor with any of the posts I've made on politics.
Smasharoo wrote:
Let's see, you ***** up the simplest US History 101 concepts attributing the exact opposite views to the wrong parties, but I'm trying to play to the uneducated? Were that true, you'd be happily agreeing with me as you're easily the least educated person who has ever posted about politics on this board.
I would win this honor with any of the posts I've made on politics.
Yup. I suppose if we yell and scream loud enough, someone will believe our point. Smasharoo Debating Logic 101...
I ignore most of your "facts" because they're garbage Smash. I'm not going to argue irrelevant points around in a circle with you.
The fact is that you blame the Reps when something goes wrong on their watch, and you refuse to give them any credit when something goes right. You are literally the poster boy for rhetoric based argument.
Well if that's your view then I guess:
You can't credit Regan with the fall of the USSR.
You can't credit Regan with any sort of economic recovery.
You can blame him for the crippling national debt though, that was all his baby.
See this is what's funny. Because you already do the opposite of all of those. See! You're making my point for me. You don't give Reagan any credit for the fall of the USSR. You don't credit Reagan for the economic recovery from 1981 to 1985. And you *do* blame him for the national debt.
It's not me that picks and chooses stuff based on a pre-existing political position Smash. It's you. This is "you're view. Nice try switching that around btw. Not good enough though.
You don't give credit for any accomplishment and happily place blame for anything that goes wrong when it's about a Rep. When it's a Dem, all the bad things were the fault of the Reps, but you'll give full marks for the vaguest bit of things that go right. That's all you Smash. I'm just pointing it out. Funny that you try to push it back on me somehow...
When I've discussed Clinton in the past, I've many times said he was a good president. I still feel he was a bit weak in some areas (oddly domestic issues), and his foreign policy was "risky". Not "bad", just different. He really did think he could broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. Heck he might even have done it, if the Israelis hadn't puckered up and elected Sharone. For good or bad, there are resulting actions we're still feeling from that. Do I think Clinton was a "bad president" for trying? Not at all. But I do recognize that there is a connection between his policies in that area, and the events that transpired during and immediately after his presidency. In the same way, I question many aspects of the war in Iraq. However, I don't think it makes Bush a "bad president" because he chose that course. It was one option out of many. It may even work out. But right or wrong, there will be resulting consequence. There always are. Second guessing them is silly, but people like you seem to want to do that all day long. It's pointless.
I'm also a realist. There is no 100% right or wrong in politics. I accept that. You apparently dont. Is Bush a great president? No. Not really. However, he's done his fair share of things right as well as his fair share of things wrong. He's not a good speaker. He's not good at snapping out good answers to any kind of questions. However, so far, his economic policies have been working. No amount of rhetoric changes that. He took a country that was heading face first into the worst recession in 40 years (possibly even 80 years!), and turned it around in 3. That's not a bad accomplishment at all. Again, his foreign policy is "risky". Probably riskier then Clintons (almost definately). And I don't agree with all of it. However, I'm willing to see what happens rather then assume it'll all end badly. Unlike some other people I could mention.
I'm not the one placing 100% blame or credit anywhere. You are. I'm merely suggesting that if you are going to do so, you need to apply the same rules to your own party as well. I just find it funny that you chose to muddle the issue with bold text and frantically worded arguments. Why are you hiding from the real issue Smash? The fact is that you are a partisan shill. Nothing more...
Oh Flish:
Bush takes office 9 months later the World Trade Center is destroyed, he cant blame Clinton enough. Then when he can't find the guy who did it, he goes and picks a fight with his daddy's old nemesis.
See this is where I wonder about partisan rhetoric. I don't recall a single statement from Bush blaming Clinton for 9/11. However, I've seen lots of Dems list 9/11 as totally the fault of Bush. My response was that if you were going to place blame on a single president, more of that blame should go on Clinton then Bush. The attacks were planned out long before Bush took office. The participants were in country taking flying lessons fully 2+ years before 9/11. My point is that it's silly to blame a particular president for what happened. And it's doubly silly to blame Bush.
Once again I find it amusing when folks try to turn around an argument like that. We start with the Dems placing blame for 9/11 on the Reps. When the Reps point out "Wait a minute! That was planned back when a Dem was in office.", suddenly you start acusing the Reps of trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that? You totally destroy your own position by proving just how unfounded it is. If it's wrong to blame Clinton, then it's 10 times as wrong to blame Bush. Yet you happily list 9/11 as a "failure" of the Bush administration.
Sorry. That just doesn't wash...
I ignore most of your "facts" because they're garbage Smash. I'm not going to argue irrelevant points around in a circle with you.
The fact is that you blame the Reps when something goes wrong on their watch, and you refuse to give them any credit when something goes right. You are literally the poster boy for rhetoric based argument.
Smasharoo wrote:
Well if that's your view then I guess:
You can't credit Regan with the fall of the USSR.
You can't credit Regan with any sort of economic recovery.
You can blame him for the crippling national debt though, that was all his baby.
See this is what's funny. Because you already do the opposite of all of those. See! You're making my point for me. You don't give Reagan any credit for the fall of the USSR. You don't credit Reagan for the economic recovery from 1981 to 1985. And you *do* blame him for the national debt.
It's not me that picks and chooses stuff based on a pre-existing political position Smash. It's you. This is "you're view. Nice try switching that around btw. Not good enough though.
You don't give credit for any accomplishment and happily place blame for anything that goes wrong when it's about a Rep. When it's a Dem, all the bad things were the fault of the Reps, but you'll give full marks for the vaguest bit of things that go right. That's all you Smash. I'm just pointing it out. Funny that you try to push it back on me somehow...
When I've discussed Clinton in the past, I've many times said he was a good president. I still feel he was a bit weak in some areas (oddly domestic issues), and his foreign policy was "risky". Not "bad", just different. He really did think he could broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine. Heck he might even have done it, if the Israelis hadn't puckered up and elected Sharone. For good or bad, there are resulting actions we're still feeling from that. Do I think Clinton was a "bad president" for trying? Not at all. But I do recognize that there is a connection between his policies in that area, and the events that transpired during and immediately after his presidency. In the same way, I question many aspects of the war in Iraq. However, I don't think it makes Bush a "bad president" because he chose that course. It was one option out of many. It may even work out. But right or wrong, there will be resulting consequence. There always are. Second guessing them is silly, but people like you seem to want to do that all day long. It's pointless.
I'm also a realist. There is no 100% right or wrong in politics. I accept that. You apparently dont. Is Bush a great president? No. Not really. However, he's done his fair share of things right as well as his fair share of things wrong. He's not a good speaker. He's not good at snapping out good answers to any kind of questions. However, so far, his economic policies have been working. No amount of rhetoric changes that. He took a country that was heading face first into the worst recession in 40 years (possibly even 80 years!), and turned it around in 3. That's not a bad accomplishment at all. Again, his foreign policy is "risky". Probably riskier then Clintons (almost definately). And I don't agree with all of it. However, I'm willing to see what happens rather then assume it'll all end badly. Unlike some other people I could mention.
I'm not the one placing 100% blame or credit anywhere. You are. I'm merely suggesting that if you are going to do so, you need to apply the same rules to your own party as well. I just find it funny that you chose to muddle the issue with bold text and frantically worded arguments. Why are you hiding from the real issue Smash? The fact is that you are a partisan shill. Nothing more...
Oh Flish:
Flishtaco wrote:
Bush takes office 9 months later the World Trade Center is destroyed, he cant blame Clinton enough. Then when he can't find the guy who did it, he goes and picks a fight with his daddy's old nemesis.
See this is where I wonder about partisan rhetoric. I don't recall a single statement from Bush blaming Clinton for 9/11. However, I've seen lots of Dems list 9/11 as totally the fault of Bush. My response was that if you were going to place blame on a single president, more of that blame should go on Clinton then Bush. The attacks were planned out long before Bush took office. The participants were in country taking flying lessons fully 2+ years before 9/11. My point is that it's silly to blame a particular president for what happened. And it's doubly silly to blame Bush.
Once again I find it amusing when folks try to turn around an argument like that. We start with the Dems placing blame for 9/11 on the Reps. When the Reps point out "Wait a minute! That was planned back when a Dem was in office.", suddenly you start acusing the Reps of trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that? You totally destroy your own position by proving just how unfounded it is. If it's wrong to blame Clinton, then it's 10 times as wrong to blame Bush. Yet you happily list 9/11 as a "failure" of the Bush administration.
Sorry. That just doesn't wash...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
See this is where I wonder about partisan rhetoric. I don't recall a single statement from Bush blaming Clinton for 9/11. However, I've seen lots of Dems list 9/11 as totally the fault of Bush. My response was that if you were going to place blame on a single president, more of that blame should go on Clinton then Bush. The attacks were planned out long before Bush took office. The participants were in country taking flying lessons fully 2+ years before 9/11. My point is that it's silly to blame a particular president for what happened. And it's doubly silly to blame Bush.
Once again I find it amusing when folks try to turn around an argument like that. We start with the Dems placing blame for 9/11 on the Reps. When the Reps point out "Wait a minute! That was planned back when a Dem was in office.", suddenly you start acusing the Reps of trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that? You totally destroy your own position by proving just how unfounded it is. If it's wrong to blame Clinton, then it's 10 times as wrong to blame Bush. Yet you happily list 9/11 as a "failure" of the Bush administration.
Once again I find it amusing when folks try to turn around an argument like that. We start with the Dems placing blame for 9/11 on the Reps. When the Reps point out "Wait a minute! That was planned back when a Dem was in office.", suddenly you start acusing the Reps of trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that? You totally destroy your own position by proving just how unfounded it is. If it's wrong to blame Clinton, then it's 10 times as wrong to blame Bush. Yet you happily list 9/11 as a "failure" of the Bush administration.
Guess we dont get the news in Gbajidreamworld, gotta have your head pretty much shoved in the sand to not have heard every Republican coming out of the woodwork blaming Clinton in the after math of 9/11. Take that with the fact that Bush spent more of his first 9 months on vacation (like half) of any president and ya I think Bush decided to sleep in then blame Clinton afterwords.
I've been reading this... and noticed that several democrats are exploiting the terror attacks of 9-11 for political gain, even though they accuse republicans for doing it.... oh well.....
Here's my quote of the... randomly selected day:
"I actually voted for the 89 billion dollars, before I voted against it."
Sen. John Kerry, Bullcrap extrodinare
lol
Here's my quote of the... randomly selected day:
"I actually voted for the 89 billion dollars, before I voted against it."
Sen. John Kerry, Bullcrap extrodinare
lol
flishtaco wrote:
Guess we dont get the news in Gbajidreamworld, gotta have your head pretty much shoved in the sand to not have heard every Republican coming out of the woodwork blaming Clinton in the after math of 9/11. Take that with the fact that Bush spent more of his first 9 months on vacation (like half) of any president and ya I think Bush decided to sleep in then blame Clinton afterwords.
Um... Well, if it's that dramatic, then surely you wont have a hard time finding me a link, right? And not some extreme right wing site somewhere that no one but right wing folks would ever read.
Look. Let's just look at this site. We get some pretty hefty political debates going here from all sides. I can point out, right now, in this very thead, an accusation by the Dems on this forum that 9/11 was a failure (and the fault) of the Bush administration.
So... You should be able to find a thread here somewhere by one of us outspoken Reps blaming clinton for it. And not as a response to an accusation blaming Bush. Find me a post where someone actually just states that Clinton is to blame for the 9/11 attacks.
If we're to take the debate on this forum as a microcosm of debate going on around the country, I'd say it's pretty safe to say that a lot of Dems are vocalizing the idea that Bush is to blame about 9/11. I simply have not seen any Reps blaming Clinton for it. Not officially. Not unofficially. Not anywhere. Now, I'm perfectly willing to reverse my position if you can find something different (and show that it happend *first* and not as a response to Dems blaming Bush). I'm betting you can't though.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
SplinterCellDude wrote:
I've been reading this... and noticed that several democrats are exploiting the terror attacks of 9-11 for political gain, even though they accuse republicans for doing it.... oh well.....
Here's my quote of the... randomly selected day:
"I actually voted for the 89 billion dollars, before I voted against it."
Sen. John Kerry, Bullcrap extrodinare
lol
Here's my quote of the... randomly selected day:
"I actually voted for the 89 billion dollars, before I voted against it."
Sen. John Kerry, Bullcrap extrodinare
lol
Very true, yet another one of the funny truths in this election =), Ya Bush ran that ad that suposedly took advantage of 9/11 and the Dems got all bent. Both sides were behaving badly the Reps for using the image and the Dems for getting that pissed off about the Reps using it. The whole thing is kinda like the OJ trial, (I think it was Chris Rock who said it) The blacks were all cheering like they had all gotten off and the whites were all pissed off like they had gotten convicted.
go to fox news, type blame clinton 9/11
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_why_the_fbi.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/597562/posts
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/6/8/103007
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020111
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/august/0801_aldrich.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/11/232727.shtml
just a few of the stories there, and I am sure if I had looked under like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity etc I could have found more, most of the sources are like "white house officials" but we all know that just means Bush is releasing it thru mouthpieces.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/4/03534.shtml
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_why_the_fbi.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/597562/posts
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/6/8/103007
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020111
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2003/august/0801_aldrich.shtml
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/11/232727.shtml
just a few of the stories there, and I am sure if I had looked under like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity etc I could have found more, most of the sources are like "white house officials" but we all know that just means Bush is releasing it thru mouthpieces.
Did you actually read the links you posted? I found the first two (which is all the time I have had to read) to be pretty factual in their arguements that the events and safe guards that could have prevented 9/11 where the results of Clintons Justice Department. With the Bush Administration being in office for 9 months working under the guidelines and regulations of the former administration I do not see how Bush could be blamed for 9/11. I personally do not blame either President Clinton nor President Bush, the people to blame are the ones that committed the crimes. Could the events have been prevented had the "Wall" been circumvented or not even existed? Well knowing hindsight is 20/20 of course had all the pieces fallen together. However the ability to communicate between law enforcement and intelligence agencies probably would not have been sufficicient prior to 9/11 with out the limitations discussed in the second article.
Pass that doobie around Smashie-poo, cause you're inhaling way too much. If Al Gore where in office we would not be waging war against terrorism, instead we would probably be mourning over other terrorist attacks on American soil. The only thing Gore may have done was send a couple of missles into suspected Al Quaida camps and slap the terrorists on the hands so they would be able to continue with their plans to attempt to destroy the economic infrastructure of Western Civilization. Of course though that is purely speculation... perhaps Al just might have had some balls as president and declared war against terrorists and stood up to the world and said enough playing patty cake with these *** hole extremists lets take the fight to them and make them understand the world should be united in destroying the closed minded fools of the Al Quaida and take out other major threats to world security. - If Al was president during 9/11 and did the above, I would back him as I do GWB, but in my speculation Al would have never responded with like or stronger force, he would have slapped their wrists.
Is Bush popular with the entire world in his policies and doctrine since 9/11? No. But in times of need leaders make decisions and set policy that is not go be popular. Good leaders take the criticism and opposition and continue to maintain the path established by not backing down from his stance. Is Bush 100% correct? No, but he has the moral fortitude to go the distance even if it does mean pissing of a lot of people. I have to respect a man or woman that does the right thing especially when it is not the most "popular". National Security of the United States is more important than the opinion of the liberal population of a foriegn country. SO what if the Spaniards are pulling out of Iraq, it proves that Spain will cow tow to Terrorists and not stand up for right (Again solely my opinion).
Edited, Thu Mar 18 10:44:20 2004 by GWB
Quote:
Thank God we didn't have Al Gore in office to wage the "war on terror" or we might be still be in danger of not allowing the ruler of the worlds largest and least secure ******* of Nuclear weapons to assume complete power of the country and destabilize the region. Without brilliant foriegn policy like that I might be out of a job.
Pass that doobie around Smashie-poo, cause you're inhaling way too much. If Al Gore where in office we would not be waging war against terrorism, instead we would probably be mourning over other terrorist attacks on American soil. The only thing Gore may have done was send a couple of missles into suspected Al Quaida camps and slap the terrorists on the hands so they would be able to continue with their plans to attempt to destroy the economic infrastructure of Western Civilization. Of course though that is purely speculation... perhaps Al just might have had some balls as president and declared war against terrorists and stood up to the world and said enough playing patty cake with these *** hole extremists lets take the fight to them and make them understand the world should be united in destroying the closed minded fools of the Al Quaida and take out other major threats to world security. - If Al was president during 9/11 and did the above, I would back him as I do GWB, but in my speculation Al would have never responded with like or stronger force, he would have slapped their wrists.
Is Bush popular with the entire world in his policies and doctrine since 9/11? No. But in times of need leaders make decisions and set policy that is not go be popular. Good leaders take the criticism and opposition and continue to maintain the path established by not backing down from his stance. Is Bush 100% correct? No, but he has the moral fortitude to go the distance even if it does mean pissing of a lot of people. I have to respect a man or woman that does the right thing especially when it is not the most "popular". National Security of the United States is more important than the opinion of the liberal population of a foriegn country. SO what if the Spaniards are pulling out of Iraq, it proves that Spain will cow tow to Terrorists and not stand up for right (Again solely my opinion).
Edited, Thu Mar 18 10:44:20 2004 by GWB
Quote:
Yup. I suppose if we yell and scream loud enough, someone will believe our point. Smasharoo Debating Logic 101...
No. If you have accurate irrefutable fact and draw logical conclusions people still won't believe your point. That's Smasharoo debating Logic 101. Smasharoo Debating logic 102 is that the vast, vast, vast, majority of people have no actual intrest in facts or cause and effect. They, as you, are merely intrested in their beleif system being validated. Regardless of reality.
You're in good company, though, don't feel bad. Flat earthers, rRoswell Alien believers, Scientologists, etc.
Quote:
I ignore most of your "facts" because they're garbage Smash. I'm not going to argue irrelevant points around in a circle with you.
No, you ignore them because they're irefutable. In point of fact you don't ignore them untill you say something like "Republican's had to drag Demopcrats kicking and screaming into WW2". Before that you try to argue with me with random ******** that you either 1)create out of whole cloth because most of your arguments are with people who just say "Ok, sure, you're right whatever" and write you off as a moron or 2)And this is signifigantly more frightening, you really are that inadequate intelectually that you somehow derive the presice opposite of factual events from studying them. I met a person once who was convinced that Pearl Harbor was a retaliation for Hiroshima. Did we meet in RL like ships passing in the night?
Quote:
The fact is that you blame the Reps when something goes wrong on their watch, and you refuse to give them any credit when something goes right. You are literally the poster boy for rhetoric based argument.
NO. Again, that's what you do.
Quote:
See this is what's funny. Because you already do the opposite of all of those. See! You're making my point for me. You don't give Reagan any credit for the fall of the USSR. You don't credit Reagan for the economic recovery from 1981 to 1985. And you *do* blame him for the national debt.
Yes. If you learned how to READ, I was merely stating that you'd be all for all of those if you lived up to your imaginary consistency.
Quote:
It's not me that picks and chooses stuff based on a pre-existing political position Smash. It's you. This is "you're view. Nice try switching that around btw. Not good enough though.
Riiiight. Let me see if I can rephrase. Essentially you're saying "I'm not YOU ARE!."
I see.
Ingenious. Allow me to retort: "I'm rubber and you are glue, etc."
Quote:
You don't give credit for any accomplishment and happily place blame for anything that goes wrong when it's about a Rep. When it's a Dem, all the bad things were the fault of the Reps, but you'll give full marks for the vaguest bit of things that go right. That's all you Smash. I'm just pointing it out. Funny that you try to push it back on me somehow...
Funny how you're so desperately defensive that you can't actually cite an example of ANY OF THAT LUDICROUS *************
Quote:
When I've discussed Clinton in the past, I've many times said he was a good president.
When I've discussed Bush Sr. in the past, I've many times said he was a good president.
I'm sure that doens't count, however, because I'm not a Republican.
Quote:
I still feel he was a bit weak in some areas (oddly domestic issues), and his foreign policy was "risky". Not "bad", just different. He really did think he could broker a peace deal between Israel and Palestine.
Roadmap to peace. Bush thoushgt he could broker a peace deal between Isreal and Palastine. He's just so mindbogglingly unqualified to even attempt it people just pretend he never tried.
Quote:
Heck he might even have done it, if the Israelis hadn't puckered up and elected Sharone. For good or bad, there are resulting actions we're still feeling from that. Do I think Clinton was a "bad president" for trying? Not at all. But I do recognize that there is a connection between his policies in that area, and the events that transpired during and immediately after his presidency. In the same way, I question many aspects of the war in Iraq. However, I don't think it makes Bush a "bad president" because he chose that course.
Bush is a "bad president" to me for a single reason. He will nominate radically Conservative Supreme Court justices who will but my personal privacy and liberty and those of my family and freinds at risk for the next fifty years.
Quote:
It was one option out of many. It may even work out. But right or wrong, there will be resulting consequence. There always are. Second guessing them is silly, but people like you seem to want to do that all day long. It's pointless.
How foolish of me to second guess. If only I never bothered to do that like you. Oh wiat...
Quote:
I'm also a realist. There is no 100% right or wrong in politics. I accept that. You apparently dont. Is Bush a great president? No. Not really. However, he's done his fair share of things right as well as his fair share of things wrong. He's not a good speaker. He's not good at snapping out good answers to any kind of questions. However, so far, his economic policies have been working.
Working to do what? To provide a broad based economic recovery? It's not happeneing. To create jobs? It's not happeneing. To so what? I'm really at a loss here. What is it exactly that you think his policies have been sucessfull in doing?
Quote:
No amount of rhetoric changes that. He took a country that was heading face first into the worst recession in 40 years (possibly even 80 years!), and turned it around in 3.
Speaking of rhetoric....
One, look, as I've mentioned before, the only economists who think Bush "inherited" the economic downturn from Clinton are those in the employ of the Republican party. Almost litreally.
Two, the worst recession in 40 years? Put the crack pipe down, son. As bad as the economy was screwed up during the Bush administration, (and I, and Nobel Prize winning economists will agree to disagre with you and Sean Hanity and Rush Limbauh on the reason for it) it was really fairly marginal when compared to two or three others in the last 40 years.
Three, what's been turned around?
Quote:
That's not a bad accomplishment at all. Again, his foreign policy is "risky". Probably riskier then Clintons (almost definately). And I don't agree with all of it. However, I'm willing to see what happens rather then assume it'll all end badly. Unlike some other people I could mention.
End badly?
There is no "end" to foreign policy. It's constantly evolving.
What are you waiting to see?
Bush's foriegn policy has been a massive failure by any measure. Not because I'm a Democrat. Because it doesn't further the cause of the United states abroad. Conservatives agree with me.
500 Dead in Iraq.
[b]10,000 Premanently disabled. 10,000. That's not people who took a flesh wound in the leg and got a purple heart. That's people who have been maimed. Lost limbs, or eyes, or sanity.
This coming election may very well be the first where the US military votes for the Democrats.
Al Queda acts with impunity, by all appearences influincing an election in a first wold nation.
Russia is the closest it's been to a state of Dictatorship since Kruschef was in power.
Pakistan sells Nuclear technology to fringe governemnts who despise us and promise our destruction and we reward them with massive amounts of aid and ally with them.
North Korea flaunts it's Nuclear program and we cave, attempting buy off a lunatic psychopath with aid reductions of force in South Korea.
We sit idly by while Chechnia is essentially destryed.
Saudi Arabia finances suicide bombers who kill our troops and we bow to their every whim.
Hati desinigrates and we do nothing.
What results are you waiting to see, exactly?
[quote]
I'm not the one placing 100% blame or credit anywhere. You are. I'm merely suggesting that if you are going to do so, you need to apply the same rules to your own party as well. I just find it funny that you chose to muddle the issue with bold text and frantically worded arguments.
[/quote]
I use bold text and frantically worded arguments because []bIt's all you respond to[/b]. Were you capable of logical reasoned discourse I'd do that. Considering your well documented inability to ever simply say "Hey, I guess you're right, I was wrong about that" makes that impossible however.
[quote]
Why are you hiding from the real issue Smash? The fact is that you are a partisan shill. Nothing more...
[/quote]
I'm absolutely partisan. Beacuse I happen to have a set of beliefs that I'd like furthered and one party does that more effectively than the other. A "shill" however is one who ignores facts and arbitratily lies to further their beliefs. I simply don't do that. You on the other hand...
[quote]
See this is where I wonder about partisan rhetoric. I don't recall a single statement from Bush blaming Clinton for 9/11. However, I've seen lots of Dems list 9/11 as totally the fault of Bush. My response was that if you were going to place blame on a single president, more of that blame should go on Clinton then Bush. The attacks were planned out long before Bush took office. The participants were in country taking flying lessons fully 2+ years before 9/11. My point is that it's silly to blame a particular president for what happened. And it's doubly silly to blame Bush.
Once again I find it amusing when folks try to turn around an argument like that. We start with the Dems placing blame for 9/11 on the Reps. When the Reps point out "Wait a minute! That was planned back when a Dem was in office.", suddenly you start acusing the Reps of trying to blame Clinton for 9/11. Don't you see how ridiculous you look when you do that? You totally destroy your own position by proving just how unfounded it is. If it's wrong to blame Clinton, then it's 10 times as wrong to blame Bush. Yet you happily list 9/11 as a "failure" of the Bush administration.
[/quote]
It is a failure. Letting 3000 Americans die because you didn't do enough to secure the borders is a failure. Would it have happened if Gorr was in office? Sure. It would have been a failure then too. For him.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
I use bold text and frantically worded arguments because []bIt's all you respond to. Were you capable of logical reasoned discourse I'd do that. Considering your well documented inability to ever simply say "Hey, I guess you're right, I was wrong about that" makes that impossible however.
See, Smash is starting to "think outside the box".
Quote:
“Why America Slept” paints a picture of gross negligence from the Clinton administration.
“We just weren't focused on Islamic militants,” Posner told NBC’s Katie Couric Wednesday, explaining, “You had President Clinton in an eight-year period, there was two years he met with the head of the CIA twice. That was it. He just wasn't attuned to foreign policy or the issue of terrorism.”
Posner told O’Reilly his investigation of Clinton’s handling of bin Laden left him disgusted.
“This is from a fellow who voted twice for Clinton,” a repentant Posner said. “I wouldn’t do it again.”
“We just weren't focused on Islamic militants,” Posner told NBC’s Katie Couric Wednesday, explaining, “You had President Clinton in an eight-year period, there was two years he met with the head of the CIA twice. That was it. He just wasn't attuned to foreign policy or the issue of terrorism.”
Posner told O’Reilly his investigation of Clinton’s handling of bin Laden left him disgusted.
“This is from a fellow who voted twice for Clinton,” a repentant Posner said. “I wouldn’t do it again.”
Article #1
Quote:
But the elite ideology began its corrosive work long before 9/11. For three decades, the liberal establishment, fixated on preventing a highly unlikely repeat of Watergate-era abuses, has encumbered America’s intelligence and national security capacities with increasingly crippling procedural inhibitions, culminating in domestic intelligence restrictions promulgated by the Clinton administration
Article #2
maybe a better question would be did you bother to read the articles GWB? I could have had more articles but I kept getting stonewalled by links to articles where I would have to pay to access, WSJ etc.
Really to sit there and say that this never happened is to be the Iraqi minister claiming that the Americans are in full retreat and have been battered severely while the media is showing tanks moving in like 2 blocks away.
Two points Smash:
No. If you have accurate irrefutable fact and draw logical conclusions people still won't believe your point. That's Smasharoo debating Logic 101. Smasharoo Debating logic 102 is that the vast, vast, vast, majority of people have no actual intrest in facts or cause and effect. They, as you, are merely intrested in their beleif system being validated. Regardless of reality.
Which nicely explains your lack of using anything remotely resembling facts and logic when arguing a point. Nice. Thanks for proving my point about you.
Sure. But I'd bet 100,000 dollars US that if the situation were reversed, and say that 9/11 had occured in 1993 intead of 2001, you'd be arguing the exact opposite point. You'd be saying that Clinton couldn't be blamed becuase he'd just taken office, and squarely placing the blame on Bush Sr. Gore being in office isn't an issue for you since the previous administration would also have belonged to your precious Democrat party. I'm fairly certain that had Gore been elected, you would have found some way to push blame all the way back to the Bush/Reagan era...
Face it Smash. You don't take positions based on what's best for the country, or what makes the most sense, or even what's right and what's wrong. You take positions purely based on your own political party and what will make them look better. It's pretty sad and pathetic actually.
Smasharoo wrote:
No. If you have accurate irrefutable fact and draw logical conclusions people still won't believe your point. That's Smasharoo debating Logic 101. Smasharoo Debating logic 102 is that the vast, vast, vast, majority of people have no actual intrest in facts or cause and effect. They, as you, are merely intrested in their beleif system being validated. Regardless of reality.
Which nicely explains your lack of using anything remotely resembling facts and logic when arguing a point. Nice. Thanks for proving my point about you.
Quote:
It is a failure. Letting 3000 Americans die because you didn't do enough to secure the borders is a failure. Would it have happened if Gorr was in office? Sure. It would have been a failure then too. For him.
Sure. But I'd bet 100,000 dollars US that if the situation were reversed, and say that 9/11 had occured in 1993 intead of 2001, you'd be arguing the exact opposite point. You'd be saying that Clinton couldn't be blamed becuase he'd just taken office, and squarely placing the blame on Bush Sr. Gore being in office isn't an issue for you since the previous administration would also have belonged to your precious Democrat party. I'm fairly certain that had Gore been elected, you would have found some way to push blame all the way back to the Bush/Reagan era...
Face it Smash. You don't take positions based on what's best for the country, or what makes the most sense, or even what's right and what's wrong. You take positions purely based on your own political party and what will make them look better. It's pretty sad and pathetic actually.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Scholar
22 posts
Flish. I started out by going one by one through your articles and bashing them, but it got tedious, so I'll just throw this out there.
Here's the deal. You are claiming that the Republicans (as a group) actively blamed Clinton for 9/11, and therefore the Dems are reacting to Republican claims when they blame Bush. Oddly, aside from a couple screwballs (and I said no screwballs!), none of your posted articles really support your position.
It's safe to say that the Dems have been blaming Bush for 9/11 since day one (more on that later). An article or book written in 2003 is very clearly a response to Dem finger pointing, not the other way around. Other articles you linked are merely pointing out the lack of "real" investigation into 9/11 instead of finger pointing (presumably at Bush). The article about the removal of scenes from the file "Blackhawk Down" that painted a poor picture of Clinton's handle on terrorism and implied he was to blame only highlights this point. Um... It was removed! To me, that's an indication that we're seeing an active attempt by major media to distance Clinton from 9/11. Any Rep statements to the contrary are reactions to that, not the cause...
Ok. So you can punch in a google search. So can I. How about "Bush 9/11"? Funny thing, my articles show much more blame pushing, finger pointing, and in some cases implication of conspiracy pointed at the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. I'm sorry, but your articles are just trash in comparison. The Reps aren't doing hardly any finger pointing in comparison to those pointing fingers at them first:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php
That one's beautiful. Talks about how the government had all these warning signs, and yet even though the majority of those signs quoted in the article occured during the Clinton administration, the author's still blaming Bush. Hmmm... partisan? I think so...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Hell. I'm not even sure what the point of this one is. It just looks like something designed to spread FUD. The general thrust seems to be: "Something's fishy, it has to do with 9/11, and we're going to imply that Bush was involved somehow". Very bizaare, and a typical example of Dem innuendo. When you don't have any coherent point, just toss out random facts in a way that implied that somewhere, the government is doing something behind your back. Classic!
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm
This one's pretty darn direct. Nice format too!
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0913-03.htm
Heh. These guys are funny. I call Godwin's law on their whole site!
But hey! If you don't believe that Dems are actively blaming Bush for 9/11, try this one on for size:
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
Look. I call em like I see em. In the wake of 9/11, I remember seeing story after story on the news and in other media about investigations into "what really happened", and "how did we fail". Every single one I saw either didn't point a finger anywhere, or pointed it at Bush. Clinton was never blamed (not that I think he should have been, just saying it anyway).
Here we are a couple years later. You'd think a bit of time would allow a more reasoned and introspective approach when discussing the security failures that led to 9/11. And if you do such an analysis, you can't help but conclude that Clinton's policies had at least as much to do (likely more) with the 9/11 attacks then anything Bush did. That's not finger pointing, that's just looking at the issue objectively. Finger pointing is the reams of articles from the liberal media in the wake of 9/11 implying that Bush failed the country. What's going on now, is not finger pointing. It's more a measured and objective look at what really happened, and yes, a response to the initial finger pointing by the Dems.
We can sit here and pull links off the web all day long. However, the fact is that if you look just on this forum, you will find that virtually ever single political argument gets started because a Democrat starts out by blaming the Bush administration for something, and us Reps step in to defend. Not the other way around. That's not coincidene folks. If I were a bit meaner, I might suggest that the Dems resort to attacking Rep positions purely because they know that they can't hope to win voters by actually endorsing their own. Their political agenda is so unliked by the majority of US citizens, that their only hope is to continually cast doubt on what the Reps are doing. It just bothers me when a party's only platform seems to be "vote for us, becuase we've told you all these horror stories about the other guy". Um... Ok. that's nice. But maybe if you guys had a platform that people would vote *for*, you wouldn't need to try to get people to vote *against* the other party.
But hey. Be known as the party of mudslinging, and innuendo, and rhetoric. So far, that's all I've seen...
Here's the deal. You are claiming that the Republicans (as a group) actively blamed Clinton for 9/11, and therefore the Dems are reacting to Republican claims when they blame Bush. Oddly, aside from a couple screwballs (and I said no screwballs!), none of your posted articles really support your position.
It's safe to say that the Dems have been blaming Bush for 9/11 since day one (more on that later). An article or book written in 2003 is very clearly a response to Dem finger pointing, not the other way around. Other articles you linked are merely pointing out the lack of "real" investigation into 9/11 instead of finger pointing (presumably at Bush). The article about the removal of scenes from the file "Blackhawk Down" that painted a poor picture of Clinton's handle on terrorism and implied he was to blame only highlights this point. Um... It was removed! To me, that's an indication that we're seeing an active attempt by major media to distance Clinton from 9/11. Any Rep statements to the contrary are reactions to that, not the cause...
Ok. So you can punch in a google search. So can I. How about "Bush 9/11"? Funny thing, my articles show much more blame pushing, finger pointing, and in some cases implication of conspiracy pointed at the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11. I'm sorry, but your articles are just trash in comparison. The Reps aren't doing hardly any finger pointing in comparison to those pointing fingers at them first:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php
That one's beautiful. Talks about how the government had all these warning signs, and yet even though the majority of those signs quoted in the article occured during the Clinton administration, the author's still blaming Bush. Hmmm... partisan? I think so...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
Hell. I'm not even sure what the point of this one is. It just looks like something designed to spread FUD. The general thrust seems to be: "Something's fishy, it has to do with 9/11, and we're going to imply that Bush was involved somehow". Very bizaare, and a typical example of Dem innuendo. When you don't have any coherent point, just toss out random facts in a way that implied that somewhere, the government is doing something behind your back. Classic!
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0601-01.htm
This one's pretty darn direct. Nice format too!
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0913-03.htm
Heh. These guys are funny. I call Godwin's law on their whole site!
But hey! If you don't believe that Dems are actively blaming Bush for 9/11, try this one on for size:
http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=911
Look. I call em like I see em. In the wake of 9/11, I remember seeing story after story on the news and in other media about investigations into "what really happened", and "how did we fail". Every single one I saw either didn't point a finger anywhere, or pointed it at Bush. Clinton was never blamed (not that I think he should have been, just saying it anyway).
Here we are a couple years later. You'd think a bit of time would allow a more reasoned and introspective approach when discussing the security failures that led to 9/11. And if you do such an analysis, you can't help but conclude that Clinton's policies had at least as much to do (likely more) with the 9/11 attacks then anything Bush did. That's not finger pointing, that's just looking at the issue objectively. Finger pointing is the reams of articles from the liberal media in the wake of 9/11 implying that Bush failed the country. What's going on now, is not finger pointing. It's more a measured and objective look at what really happened, and yes, a response to the initial finger pointing by the Dems.
We can sit here and pull links off the web all day long. However, the fact is that if you look just on this forum, you will find that virtually ever single political argument gets started because a Democrat starts out by blaming the Bush administration for something, and us Reps step in to defend. Not the other way around. That's not coincidene folks. If I were a bit meaner, I might suggest that the Dems resort to attacking Rep positions purely because they know that they can't hope to win voters by actually endorsing their own. Their political agenda is so unliked by the majority of US citizens, that their only hope is to continually cast doubt on what the Reps are doing. It just bothers me when a party's only platform seems to be "vote for us, becuase we've told you all these horror stories about the other guy". Um... Ok. that's nice. But maybe if you guys had a platform that people would vote *for*, you wouldn't need to try to get people to vote *against* the other party.
But hey. Be known as the party of mudslinging, and innuendo, and rhetoric. So far, that's all I've seen...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Dammit! Stupid thing....
Edited, Thu Mar 18 20:44:51 2004 by gbaji
Edited, Thu Mar 18 20:44:51 2004 by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Quote:
Look. I call em like I see em. In the wake of 9/11, I remember seeing story after story on the news and in other media about investigations into "what really happened", and "how did we fail". Every single one I saw either didn't point a finger anywhere, or pointed it at Bush. Clinton was never blamed.
My god you do live in a box, I knew it, try a Lexis Nexus search or any night on FNC and see how much these Dems are there attacking the Republicans first on issues. You need to get out more Gbaji or actually watch the news on any given night, rather believing all your right wing propagandists.
flishtaco wrote:
My god you do live in a box, I knew it, try a Lexis Nexus search or any night on FNC and see how much these Dems are there attacking the Republicans first on issues. You need to get out more Gbaji or actually watch the news on any given night, rather believing all your right wing propagandists.
See this is where I'm confused here. I don't read any "propaganda" at all. I watch the evening news (on a variety of stations), and I on occasion read the local newspaper. Occasionally, I'll tune into CNN or TNN, or some other news network, but that's about the extent of it.
My observations are based on the media exposure a "normal" citizen would recieve. I recall a ton of news articles and "exposes'" discussing the failure of the Bush administration to prevent 9/11. I do not recall even one single story that even hinted that Clinton's administration should maybe shoulder a bit of the blame. Not one.
On the other hand, it seems like you and Smash (and others) go out regularly trolling the Dem propaganda boards looking for information to post here about how the Reps are somehow at fault for every ill in the world. Heck. The number of threads on this page alone started with the sole purpose of bashing the Bush administration and the Republican party is telling all by iteself. Are you really that blind?
Um... But *I'm* biased? Sheesh!...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
I would say that you do the majority of you time ignoring what is going on in the world around you. <shrug>
What I remember is the day after reading about Falwell and Roberston blaming the ****, the jews, the ACLU, and Clinton for allowing this to happen, they were not the first or the last, what you see now is the backlash to all the instagating by the Republicans and a bit of CYA that the Bush administration is trying to pull with this investigation due to close soon. Maybe you need to open your eyes I have seen at least as many topics opened by Republicans trying to egg on Democrats on this board.
But I supose the proof is in the pudding lets see what the investigation shows. Of course if its for you, then you typically will hold it out as a great investigation, and if it shows your boy was at fault you along with the rest of your party will again blame it on the Democrats as being partisian and not willing to look at everything.
What I remember is the day after reading about Falwell and Roberston blaming the ****, the jews, the ACLU, and Clinton for allowing this to happen, they were not the first or the last, what you see now is the backlash to all the instagating by the Republicans and a bit of CYA that the Bush administration is trying to pull with this investigation due to close soon. Maybe you need to open your eyes I have seen at least as many topics opened by Republicans trying to egg on Democrats on this board.
But I supose the proof is in the pudding lets see what the investigation shows. Of course if its for you, then you typically will hold it out as a great investigation, and if it shows your boy was at fault you along with the rest of your party will again blame it on the Democrats as being partisian and not willing to look at everything.
Quote:
Did you actually read the links you posted? I found the first two (which is all the time I have had to read) to be pretty factual in their arguements that the events and safe guards that could have prevented 9/11 where the results of Clintons Justice Department.
Quote:
maybe a better question would be did you bother to read the articles GWB?
Obviously Flishtaco when you read you skip over the parts you don't understand.
To keep this short - I'll agree with Gbaji.
flishtaco wrote:
What I remember is the day after reading about Falwell and Roberston blaming the ****, the jews, the ACLU, and Clinton for allowing this to happen...
Flish. I said "no nutballs!". I don't think you can take the words of a couple of religious fanatics as indicative of the entire Republican party.
I'm talking about what is presented to the general public in terms of blame. You had to go looking to find out what Falwell had to say about 9/11. I only had to turn on the TV to see the local news in order to see blame and suspicion placed on the Bush administration for 9/11. Huge difference. If you can't see that difference, then there's really no hope for you...
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
How about these two then, Andrew Sullivan, in Nov 11, 2001 Washingtion Times, and Nov 13, 2001 O'Reily Factor, with guest Jeff Kuhner, editor of the Washington Times, blamed Clinton's administration for 9/11, your welcome to look at the transcripts. Obviously there are many many more sources but it really wouldnt matter to you if I listed all them or 10 of them or 100 of them you still are going to put your blinders on and hold you hands over your ears and say that I am wrong.
Edit--never saw anyone comment on this after I said it so again I will bring it up, no one said anything laying blame when the WTC was bombed in Clinton's adminstration. Would love you to find anyone who did blame BushSR for this I will even take a left wing nut.
Edited, Fri Mar 19 19:20:51 2004 by flishtaco
Edit--never saw anyone comment on this after I said it so again I will bring it up, no one said anything laying blame when the WTC was bombed in Clinton's adminstration. Would love you to find anyone who did blame BushSR for this I will even take a left wing nut.
Edited, Fri Mar 19 19:20:51 2004 by flishtaco
Recent Visitors: 449
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (449)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- I'd like to thank Bush for bringing Socialism to the EU
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC