Printable View
I think of myself as a conservative, pretty much entirely. Eheh, I dunno if I should be insulted or pleased that you thought I might be leaning towards the left.
You've made some good points as well - I wasn't suggesting that the Republicans were involved with any of Clinton's crimes; I was trying to suggest that the Republicans were involved in the crime of demeaning the Office.
hehe, I didn't think of you as left leaning, I just seldom meet conservatives on the net, they don't tend to congregate on gaming sites. :)
"fact that W was a coke-head."? That isn't a fact, the book that originally made that claim was written by an felon and was refuted. Bush also refused to respond to those allegations, I'm sorry but where I come from that is hardly considered a "fact" or anything else but unfounded character assassination which was unwarranted especially when entirely based on "evidence" from a book by a felon.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
The "digging into the past" thing is a little silly, I'll admit, and I'm glad nobody's brought up the fact that W was a coke-head. But criticizing the cheif executive is a crucial function of democracy, I believe, as long as the criticism is warranted.
Guts? The leader of the world's most powerful military having the guts to stand up to Iraq - a country whose army was decimated then starved for 10 years - is like me, Bruce Lee and the '85 Bears having the guts to stand up to a classroom full of 3rd graders.
How can you criticize the guy for trying to iron out peace in the middle east? The Camp David Accord was probably (or at least, should have been) his greatest accomplishment.
Most people didn't...
Our last leader didn't have the guts to stand up to Iraq, and the one before that didn't have the guts to do something like removing Saddam even though it was completely warranted and needed.
So we are supposed to avoid making comments about someone merely because they have good intentions? The Camp David peace talks, not the Camp David Accord which was in 1978, were a failure becuase of the Palestinians refusal to accept the deal which at the end included 95 percent of their demands, including turning over parts of Jerusalem to their control. Clinton tried and succeeded in getting the Israelis to meet almost all of the demands made by the Palestinians, what good was that? Clinton did so at the expense of domestic issues at home all for some kind of legacy he could create for his frankly insipid and scandal ridden presidency. And the agreement even if it had been passed would hardly create peace in the region between the Palestinians and the Israelis, seeing as how the PLO's stated goal has been and is the complete destruction of Israel as a nation and culture. Try looking up the Fatah's constitution some time. "Article (12) Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.".
Good thing we have something called an "electoral college" eh?...
My views on Clinton's infidelity aside, it's not about "the President's BJ," but his blatantly having lied to the American people once the subject had become unavoidable. The fact that you acknowledge that he did lie, and your response is apathy (even going so far as to say you'd do the same thing in his position), gives a rather negative impression of your character.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
Yeah, and I wish I had the power to have made all that bullshit about the President's BJ dissapear so I wouldn't have to deal with the same lame jokes on Saturday Night Live that were only on when the news shut up about the incident for one small hour and I didn't have to hear guys like you preach this crap to me day in and day out for months at a time.
You should not represent America.Quote:
Originally posted by Rick
Welcome to America.
I suppose it is a negative view, but sometimes I feel that the power to vote shouldn't be for everyone... maybe even myself. It's just scary to me to think of all the people out there who vote with such (fucked up priorities, and) an askew view of the worldQuote:
Originally posted by Stone
That's not cool, Gondolin. Respecting every American citzen's right to a vote is, to me, far more important than respecting the President (although that is, of course, important). The idea of wanting to take away a person's vote is really negative on a number of levels - you have to try to change the climate, by doing things like discussing the value of the office in threads like this. I'm really happy with this thread, anyways, the discussion in it.
Just, simply, respect the President a little bit, at least, simply because you respect the office. Respect other voters simply because they have the right to vote, so on. This sort of stuff is lost when you simplify Clinton to the point where you call him an unprincipled pervert, or consider Bush a stupid warmonger, or Republicans as evil poor-hating money-lovers, or whatever.
You're right, though. And I definitely agree that the people are more important - hence, ultimately deserving more respect - than the body that governs them (its sole purpose being to serve the people).
So, Clinton's administration wasn't responsible for our swollen economy during his stay in office? I don't agree or disagree, but could you elaborate?Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Please list exactly what policies Clinton created and supported that were good for our country. And please explain how he was directly responsible for a properous economy. Of course I expect no factual reply to both of these statements seeing as how it can't be done. Clinton wasn't responsible for our economy or for programs and actions that were good for our country, almost all of the legislation was created by a republican leadership, and as for the economy Clinton created or supported NO legislation that had anything to do with our economy prospering and in fact the current downturn in our economy started during his adminstration.
What, then, passes as intelligent discourse for you?Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
Way to turn a funny picture into a shitty cock measuring contest.
Good job guys.
Take Stone's advice.
Though some of whom you've listed are debatable, you've illustrated my point. Very few presidents have ever been what you consider worthy of their office. So, while I agree that ideally the president should be as you say, holding Bush to those perfect standards is unfair and unrealistic.Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
That would require WAY too much research on my part, but a couple of highlights have been: Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.
Ouch. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Masters
I'll give you that, as long as I can keep you from breeding.
You've had nothing to say. Moving on...
I know what you said, and of course you wouldn't, but you cannot be so certain. And you can't lay claim to something that you have no way of proving.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
I didn't say I would - I said I could. And I still guarantee it.
C'mon, now. Guess how much saying stuff like that helps your argument?Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
BTW: I can tell your a shmuck just by reading your posts.
And why no response to my PM?
I don't know about the Camp David peace talks, but... http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...12/16/clinton/Quote:
Originally posted by StriderKyo
How can you criticize the guy for trying to iron out peace in the middle east? The Camp David Accord was probably (or at least, should have been) his greatest accomplishment.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
It was never about the sex, it was about his felonious actions, actions that would have brought jail time for anyone else who had done them.
Gon
Why can't we get this kind of action in FC?
Entertaining read guys, keep it up.
I think the fear of a thread like this turning into Fight Club fodder ("Let's Call Each Other Fags!") is what keeps people civil enough to enjoy and participate in the discussion.
I would say the same. That, and the fact that much of this discussion is beyond many people here, myself included. My knowledge of politics is quite poor.
Ok here goes....THIS COUNTRY IS RUN BY CORPORATE SCUM WHO DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE AVERAGE WORKING AMERICAN, IF YOU CANNOT SEE THIS YOU ARE BLIND AND OR VERY RICH AND THUS RECEICVE ALL THE TAX BREAKS THAT WE DONT!!!! GET IT....THEY ARE DIGGING A DITCH NOT ONLY FOR US HERE IN THE GOOD OL' US WHICH I LOVE TO DEATH, BUT ALSO ABROAD...it is really a shame, the homicide rate in Oakland is double that off two years ago, this country especially the inner cities are currently reliving the Reagan era, trickle down economics do not always trickle my friends...where is the money for education, health care, social services, guess what, THERE IS NONE!!!!Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
Nice ad hominum attack, care to point out all the evidence you have for my being a "shmuck"? Or for that matter even bother coming back with that unbiased evidence that I asked for?
This is a far greater problem, it goes beyond the boundaries of Republican, Democrat, Bush, Clinton (why is his name always brought up when people attack Bush, "well Clinton did this," two wrongs dont make a right my friends, you sound like little school yard children, and you know what so do all those jack ass "journalists" on MSNBC...this country is slowly becoming a nation of idiots, and video games aint helping the cause, lemme tell ya!!!
Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago, but I will take some time out of my night to run over a quick couple of points, which are all true, no heresay, no conspiracy, no propaganda...I'll let you the poeple make the judgement call.
Internationally, we are alienating ourselves and digging a big fat ditch that George "the big pussy" Bush is going to leave up to our children and grand children to get out of. We are violating world law if we go into Iraq. Great, us versus the world....
How does sending 20 year old kids to fight an old man's war of greed in 20 million dollar killing machines, a display of balls, I will never know, what I do know is that Iraq is the second largest untapped oil resource in the world as of January 2002, and installing a puppet government there will give the US the strategic position it needs in the Middle East, we already secured Afghanistan and Israel(chuckle*chuckle), but I guarantee we will be paying more at the pump. This war on terror is the perfect vehicle for covert imperialism, aint it???
You think the world does not see what our government is currently trying to do???? Do you think they are happy??? I'm not talking about shit little shanty town filled countries like Iraq or the Phillipines, I'm talking about the big players, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, etc...this is where problems will arise.
Cheney
Did business with Saddam hussein while CEO of Halliburton Oil, as reported by the Washington Post in June 2001. Hypocritce.
Kenneth Lay
*Written before the Enron scandal hit the media*
Lay is the head of Enron the largest electricity trader in the US, and the TOP contributor to the Bush campaign. Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list of preferred candidates for key commisiion posts. thanks in part to the California energy crisis, Enron has quickly grown into a $100 billion company, Bush and Cheney rely on Lay for advice, some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.
Condolezza Rice
Served on the Chevron board of directors (proven to be the no. #1 offender of International Preservation Laws), for her services she had a 130,000 ton oil tanker named after her. She was also director at Charles Shcwab and Trans America.
Prescott Bush
In the 1930s and 1940s, George's great grand daddy, was one of the seven directors in the Union Banking Corporation, owned by Nazi industrialists. After filtering their money through a Dutch bank, they hid an estimated $3 million in Bush's bank. The government eventually seized the assets and the bank dissolved in 1951, after which Prescott and his father Sam Bush received a mere 1.5 million, and so today, the leader of the free world owes his status and position to Hitler, even if indirectly...kinda ironic, isnt it?;)
These are they type of people that are dictating our future, i might post some more in the future...God bless America.
and Gondo,,,,
I pmed you back my friend. :)
No it wasn't responsible. I would recomend books but that would be a bit of a stretch seeing as you most likely aren't _that_ interested in economics. Here are some decent articles, albeit from libertarians (hope they don't bore you too much).. :DQuote:
Originally posted by Gondolin
So, Clinton's administration wasn't responsible for our swollen economy during his stay in office? I don't agree or disagree, but could you elaborate?
Gon
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=572
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=303
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=46
And here I was actually thinking that threads like this were going on all the time in FC, that is why I requested access to it... :PQuote:
Originally posted by Stone
I think the fear of a thread like this turning into Fight Club fodder ("Let's Call Each Other Fags!") is what keeps people civil enough to enjoy and participate in the discussion.
Quote:
Originally posted by MrKasualUltra2000
Ok here goes....THIS COUNTRY IS RUN BY CORPORATE SCUM WHO DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE AVERAGE WORKING AMERICAN, IF YOU CANNOT SEE THIS YOU ARE BLIND AND OR VERY RICH AND THUS RECEICVE ALL THE TAX BREAKS THAT WE DONT!!!! GET IT....THEY ARE DIGGING A DITCH NOT ONLY FOR US HERE IN THE GOOD OL' US WHICH I LOVE TO DEATH, BUT ALSO ABROAD...it is really a shame, the homicide rate in Oakland is double that off two years ago, this country especially the inner cities are currently reliving the Reagan era, trickle down economics do not always trickle my friends...where is the money for education, health care, social services, guess what, THERE IS NONE!!!!
This is a far greater problem, it goes beyond the boundaries of Republican, Democrat, Bush, Clinton (why is his name always brought up when people attack Bush, "well Clinton did this," two wrongs dont make a right my friends, you sound like little school yard children, and you know what so do all those jack ass "journalists" on MSNBC...this country is slowly becoming a nation of idiots, and video games aint helping the cause, lemme tell ya!!!
Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago, but I will take some time out of my night to run over a quick couple of points, which are all true, no heresay, no conspiracy, no propaganda...I'll let you the poeple make the judgement call.
Internationally, we are alienating ourselves and digging a big fat ditch that George "the big pussy" Bush is going to leave up to our children and grand children to get out of. We are violating world law if we go into Iraq. Great, us versus the world....
How does sending 20 year old kids to fight an old man's war of greed in 20 million dollar killing machines, a display of balls, I will never know, what I do know is that Iraq is the second largest untapped oil resource in the world as of January 2002, and installing a puppet government there will give the US the strategic position it needs in the Middle East, we already secured Afghanistan and Israel(chuckle*chuckle), but I guarantee we will be paying more at the pump. This war on terror is the perfect vehicle for covert imperialism, aint it???
You think the world does not see what our government is currently trying to do???? Do you think they are happy??? I'm not talking about shit little shanty town filled countries like Iraq or the Phillipines, I'm talking about the big players, Russia, Japan, China, Germany, etc...this is where problems will arise.
Cheney
Did business with Saddam hussein while CEO of Halliburton Oil, as reported by the Washington Post in June 2001. Hypocritce.
Kenneth Lay
*Written before the Enron scandal hit the media*
Lay is the head of Enron the largest electricity trader in the US, and the TOP contributor to the Bush campaign. Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list of preferred candidates for key commisiion posts. thanks in part to the California energy crisis, Enron has quickly grown into a $100 billion company, Bush and Cheney rely on Lay for advice, some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.
Condolezza Rice
Served on the Chevron board of directors (proven to be the no. #1 offender of International Preservation Laws), for her services she had a 130,000 ton oil tanker named after her. She was also director at Charles Shcwab and Trans America.
Prescott Bush
In the 1930s and 1940s, George's great grand daddy, was one of the seven directors in the Union Banking Corporation, owned by Nazi industrialists. After filtering their money through a Dutch bank, they hid an estimated $3 million in Bush's bank. The government eventually seized the assets and the bank dissolved in 1951, after which Prescott and his father Sam Bush received a mere 1.5 million, and so today, the leader of the free world owes his status and position to Hitler, even if indirectly...kinda ironic, isnt it?;)
hmm, couldn't come up with any real factual basis for your ad hominum attack eh? Figures.. Love this though, you specifically told me that "I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off." in response to my statement pointing out that "your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda." and me asking for unbiased source material. And now you say this "Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago,". Don't post remarks saying you will do something if you have no intention of doing so, especially after doing something unprovoked and inane like calling me a shmuck.
I will deal first with the 6 sections before the comment about Cheney.
Wow, the entire 6 paragraphs are completely filled with rhetoric and propaganda, suprise suprise. The so called corporate scum you refer to are the ones that drive economic prosperity, provide jobs and further innovation. What, did you think that raising taxes or government interference helped the economy? The wealthy gain more from tax cuts because THEY PAY MORE, the rate cuts weren't higher for them. The Reagan era? During the 80's the rate of US manufacturing productivity growth tripled, manufacturing's share of the GNP rebound to 1960s levels, we had an export boom, 1988 BOL report shows that the percentage of new jobs in higher skill categories was much larger than in the 70s and larger than the growth in low-skilled jobs, the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, the inflation rate remained at 5 percent for most of the Reagan years down from Carter's levels of _12 percent_, those making a million or more paid 41 percent more in taxes in 1982 under the tax rate cuts than they did in 1981, the share of total tax revenues which was paid by those making $40,000 or more increased from 45.1 percent to 48 percent, the tax burden of those making less than $40,000 dropped by the equivilant percentage. We spend more on education than any other industrialized nation, and we have the worst scores. Health care needs serious reform and the elimination of all existing government controls not more money. The creation of the welfare state is the cause of many of our countries ills. These things don't need money thrown at them as some kind of "solution".
Who cares about what other countries think about us? Most of them don't believe in concepts like sovereignty of the state much less that of the individual, and they certainly don't believe in the form of government we are based on. Who needs them and their various forms of collectivism.. What world law would we be violating if we went into Iraq?
We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east, and if we were going in just to install a puppet regime, why didn't we do so after the gulf war? Saddam has already made it known that he would be willing to sell a whole lot more oil to the US if we dropped the sanctions and made no attempts at a regime change. Why would we go to war to boost oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so when it involves massive political and financial risks? It could easily cost the Republicans the white house if it went bad, foment instability in the region, ruin the oil fields, threaten our ally Israel and strain relations with our allies in the region. If all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion? Why did the American Petroleum Institute lobby for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks. Why do oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve?
None of these sections are source material.
Cheney: I cannot access washingtonpost.org for that date and neither can archive.com. The only info I can find that specifically mentions Cheney, Halliburton Oil and Iraq is from leftist sites from an article by Wayne Madsen, who doesn't provide source material or facts himself. Also, the Wayne Madsen article specifically states that they helped rebuild the Iraqi Petroleum infrastructure, not that he specifically did business with Saddam Hussein, it also doesn't list why the infrastructure was rebuilt, if indeed Halliburton was involved.
Kenneth Lay: I cannot find where this was written or back any of this up. "Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list", nowhere near proof of course but even if he had what of it? Large private energy concerns as well as other industries regularly are called upon to give info on their fields and they suggest people who they feel would support their positions. Welcome to Washington D.C.... "some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.", I would love to see the factual basis for this, it just cries out "bs".
Condolezza Rice: Who cares, nothing stated here smacks of any wrong doing. Every administration has people in it that come from the private sector...
Prescott Bush: Nice red herring and poisoning the well here, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good to see you putting your college education to good use though....
No. Just making an observation.Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Is this is what you call owning a poster?
When I posted (without reading the entire thread) you and Masters were having your little tiff.
The rest of the thread has been pretty good.
And the signature is a joke... I would hope that you are sharp enough to realize that.
Unproveked and inane...hahahaha!!!! Get a load of this guy.Quote:
Originally posted by teenwolf
hmm, couldn't come up with any real factual basis for your ad hominum attack eh? Figures.. Love this though, you specifically told me that "I'll be back later, I'll knock your socks off." in response to my statement pointing out that "your statement contained absolutely no facts or factual statements, only rhetoric and propaganda." and me asking for unbiased source material. And now you say this "Look....I'm not here to write a freaking paper requiring "proof" with endquotes and all that shit, I graduated college a year and a half ago,". Don't post remarks saying you will do something if you have no intention of doing so, especially after doing something unprovoked and inane like calling me a shmuck.
Elimination of governmental controls????Quote:
I will deal first with the 6 sections before the comment about Cheney.
Wow, the entire 6 paragraphs are completely filled with rhetoric and propaganda, suprise suprise. The so called corporate scum you refer to are the ones that drive economic prosperity, provide jobs and further innovation. What, did you think that raising taxes or government interference helped the economy? The wealthy gain more from tax cuts because THEY PAY MORE, the rate cuts weren't higher for them. The Reagan era? During the 80's the rate of US manufacturing productivity growth tripled, manufacturing's share of the GNP rebound to 1960s levels, we had an export boom, 1988 BOL report shows that the percentage of new jobs in higher skill categories was much larger than in the 70s and larger than the growth in low-skilled jobs, the poorest 20 percent of the population saw their income rise 12 percent, the inflation rate remained at 5 percent for most of the Reagan years down from Carter's levels of _12 percent_, those making a million or more paid 41 percent more in taxes in 1982 under the tax rate cuts than they did in 1981, the share of total tax revenues which was paid by those making $40,000 or more increased from 45.1 percent to 48 percent, the tax burden of those making less than $40,000 dropped by the equivilant percentage. We spend more on education than any other industrialized nation, and we have the worst scores. Health care needs serious reform and the elimination of all existing government controls not more money. The creation of the welfare state is the cause of many of our countries ills. These things don't need money thrown at them as some kind of "solution".
What happened to Bush's whole less governmnet, more people, or whatever the hell is stupid catch phrase was??? Compassionate conservertory
This attitude needs to go. We will alienate every one of our allies if we keep thinking like this, fucking war monkeys.Quote:
Who cares about what other countries think about us? Most of them don't believe in concepts like sovereignty of the state much less that of the individual, and they certainly don't believe in the form of government we are based on. Who needs them and their various forms of collectivism..
[quote]We get less than 10% of our oil from the middle east, and if we were going in just to install a puppet regime, why didn't we do so after the gulf war? Saddam has already made it known that he would be willing to sell a whole lot more oil to the US if we dropped the sanctions and made no attempts at a regime change. Why would we go to war to boost oil production from three or so million barrels a day to 6 or so when it involves massive political and financial risks? It could easily cost the Republicans the white house if it went bad, foment instability in the region, ruin the oil fields, threaten our ally Israel and strain relations with our allies in the region. If all Bush wants is oil, why is the U.S. making assurances to the French and Russians that they can keep their existing contracts if they approve an invasion? Why did the American Petroleum Institute lobby for the lifting of sanctions prior to the 9/11 attacks.[/qoute]
Where are your facts sir??? How do I know that is not propaganda you are spewing???
[quote] Why do oil prices go up when war becomes more likely, and go down when the prospects for peace improve?.[/qoute]
I wouldnt be suprised if this whole "war" was all a scam to drive up the prices in the first place.
Rhetoric and propaganda........prove me worng.....where are your sources????Quote:
Cheney: I cannot access washingtonpost.org for that date and neither can archive.com. The only info I can find that specifically mentions Cheney, Halliburton Oil and Iraq is from leftist sites from an article by Wayne Madsen, who doesn't provide source material or facts himself. Also, the Wayne Madsen article specifically states that they helped rebuild the Iraqi Petroleum infrastructure, not that he specifically did business with Saddam Hussein, it also doesn't list why the infrastructure was rebuilt, if indeed Halliburton was involved.
Kenneth Lay: I cannot find where this was written or back any of this up. "Lay has apparently provided Bush with a list", nowhere near proof of course but even if he had what of it? Large private energy concerns as well as other industries regularly are called upon to give info on their fields and they suggest people who they feel would support their positions. Welcome to Washington D.C.... "some administration appointees must first be interviewed by lay before getting the job.", I would love to see the factual basis for this, it just cries out "bs".
Condolezza Rice: Who cares, nothing stated here smacks of any wrong doing. Every administration has people in it that come from the private sector...
Prescott Bush: Nice red herring and poisoning the well here, this has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Good to see you putting your college education to good use though....
btw...Im too busy with work to be "putting my college education to work" on a vg message board...im one of the lucky ones who scored a job after graduating.
So...convince me that Bush is doing what is best for the country and is not a dumb ass...you still have not done that. And if your happy letting corporations run the country, so be it, I'm not going to change your mind.