[quote]doogie wrote:
I hate repeating myself, but it sounds like you wanted a piece of the Condi and she shot you down.
More than once.[/quote]
Well, to me it sounds like you will just believe whatever you want to believe, irrespective of reality…
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Did BB just try to make a personal insult? First, I am impressed and proud of you. You have come so far over the years. I think I even saw you give your OWN opinion on a matter in another thread today. I don’t know what that wife of yours is doing, but tell her to keep it up.
Tip from me to you: That warming jelly works. Soon, you just might dig down and call someone a dumbass and it will truly all be over.[/quote]
Thanks Prof,
Anyway though, when I really give an insult, I like it to require a few readings to sink in…
They all can’t be poetry like “Your brother has the most retarded brother,” but we can all aspire to greatness.
hsdpder and Condi sittin’ in a tree k-i-s-s-i-…nope - condi’s pissed at the untoward advances, and bites hspder’s nose off, kicks him in the nuts and tosses his ass out of the tree.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Anyway though, when I really give an insult, I like it to require a few readings to sink in…
They all can’t be poetry like “Your brother has the most retarded brother,” but we can all aspire to greatness.
[/quote]
I am hoping it lost something in the translation, and that in Belgium it is a very witty, thought provoking retort.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If you think everything he said in that interview was true I have a bridge for you! [/quote]
Instead of throwing out a politically loaded statement, why don’t you actually identify a meaningful error?
I mean, Condie tried, but she changed the language. Clinton said he’d left behind a strategy to combat terror, Condie said he hadn’t left behind a strategy to combat Al Queda.
Very sneaky indeed.
I’m so tired of rebuttals consisting of things like this, instead of actually addressing the issues themself. The trouble is, so many retards around here fall for it, because of who is saying it.
Alternately (not addressing your comments Zap), who’s stupid enough to believe that taking something out of context, and fabricating a coversation between people that aren’t actually present, represents anything close to the truth and appropriate as a rebuttal?
My eyes burn to see such idiocy presented as fact instead of infotainment or pure opinion that it generally is.
Come on.
I have seen sasquatch make some very reasonable statements, even handed ones, and a few other people. His stand out in my mind because he and I have clashed so dramatically in the past on issues I can’t even recall at this point.
Zap, you yourself seem to vacillate between reasonable statements and then completely unfounded kool-aid quaffing ones. It’s pretty strange to watch really.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hsdpder and Condi sittin’ in a tree k-i-s-s-i-…nope - condi’s pissed at the untoward advances, and bites hspder’s nose off, kicks him in the nuts and tosses his ass out of the tree.
[/quote]
Typical. Go after the made up bullshit and forget the real issues involved. No wonder the nation is going to hell in a handbasket.
Nobody knows how to keep their eye on the damned ball anymore.
[quote]deadlifter405 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.
You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You had an entire party focused on Clinton’s sex life. There was so much crap flowing around due to the massive witch hunt for semen stains that there is no way he could have gained public support when the country perceived no threat worth the effort. People would have gladly sent their sons and husbands off to war for a “possible” threat?
Hind sight is 20/20. Apparently, gullibility just runs into you from your blind spot.
Actually, I do believe this was possible. I was/am a member of the Clinton hating right wing who was jumping up and down screaming for action after the USS Cole attack. I backed the Kosovo war effort, and I would have backed a start of a global war on terrorism. So would all of the other right wingers I have spoken to about this.
Hindsight is 20/20, so I will not convict Clinton of not doing enough. Clearly, if he had known 9/11 was coming and could have been averted he would have thrown everything he had at the problem. Unfortunately, as you say, he was tied up in the sex mongering scandal (too bad he was actually guilty as hell) and had very little political capital to spend. That is why a well laid out case, similar to what he did Sunday morning on Fox News, directly to the American people for support of this new global anti-terror initiative would have worked. It could have been a much more limited plan; ala strangle their finances, special forces attacks, allied nation involvement, etc. Personally, I believe he should have been tried, convicted, and possibly executed for crimes of treason (think nuclear weapons technology to China for campaign cash), but I would have supported him in a war effort.
What you fail to comprehend is that although we right wingers are hard core Clinton haters, we’re not completely blinded by our hate either and are willing to put the good of the USA ahead of politics (hint…hint…to you left wingers who are so caught up in Bush hatred you can’t see other evil in the world).
If I’m gullible, then the evidence is my willingness to give Clinton a complete pass for everything he claimed on FoxNews Sunday except for his hands being tied by a lack of FBI/CIA certification on the USS Cole attack. He can’t claim that, and he certainly can’t claim Bush didn’t retaliate either because his hands were as equally tied (or not); you can’t have it both ways!
[/quote]
I keep forgetting what Bush’s response to the Cole was when he KNEW who did it. Oh yeah, now I remember, nothing.
The more you belittle Clinton’s efforts, the worse Bush looks. (Factually Bush did NOTHING—oh well he did keep the newly armed predator grounded till 9/11 but that probably was a bad thing).
Attn: Wingnuts!
Factually speaking:
Clinton: did something.
Bush: did less.(with Clinton’s 8 years as hindsight no less!)
[quote]100meters wrote:
I keep forgetting what Bush’s response to the Cole was when he KNEW who did it. Oh yeah, now I remember, nothing.
The more you belittle Clinton’s efforts, the worse Bush looks. (Factually Bush did NOTHING—oh well he did keep the newly armed predator grounded till 9/11 but that probably was a bad thing).
Attn: Wingnuts!
Factually speaking:
Clinton: did something.
Bush: did less.(with Clinton’s 8 years as hindsight no less!)[/quote]
If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.
Your comparison, 100meters, is a bit off – Clinton’s eight years v. Bush’s 8 months (pre-9/11 - and speaking of distracted, any one remember this little item called the Florida recount situtation).
Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.
I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.
As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
hsdpder and Condi sittin’ in a tree k-i-s-s-i-…nope - condi’s pissed at the untoward advances, and bites hspder’s nose off, kicks him in the nuts and tosses his ass out of the tree.
Typical. Go after the made up bullshit and forget the real issues involved. No wonder the nation is going to hell in a handbasket.
Nobody knows how to keep their eye on the damned ball anymore.[/quote]
Please tell me you are not really this big of a humorless moron. Please tell me that this is a Thinking Tree attempt at cracking wise.
You need to read more - and try to get just an inkling about how hspder and I interact.
But if you really are this clueless - it is a joke. IF you had a fucking sense of humor - maybe it would not be so foreign to you.
Or - I guess we should stay focused laser-like on a fucking interview that will be forgotten in 3 months.
Are YOU on PCT? If not - maybe you should try it. I know a guy that sells stuff that will strip the estrogen right out of your body. It couldn’t hurt.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.
Your comparison, 100meters, is a bit off – Clinton’s eight years v. Bush’s 8 months (pre-9/11 - and speaking of distracted, any one remember this little item called the Florida recount situtation).
Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.
I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.
As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.[/quote]
Best assessment in this very long thread.
It’s the bobble-headed partisans that want to lay blame on a party rather than look at the long history of ignoring the terrorist threat for the last 30 years.(Yes - I know I am throwing rocks at my own glass house - so sue my ass)
It makes us feel good to say it was all Clinton’s fault, or Bush’s fault - when all along we have all ignored the threat - and it never became a major issue until they hit us. It should have happened in 1993. But it took an extra 8 years.
“Our guy did more than your guy” really doesn’t solve the problem.
In that respect - Clinton knows damn well he didn’t do enough, regardless of who he passes the buck to. Bush ignored terror for 8 months, and once the war was started fucked up the assault - or at the very least went way too soft in trying to wage a “nice war”.
[quote]100meters wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
deadlifter405 wrote:
Clinton could have easily announced a prime time press conference where he laid out a war plan to get back at Bin Laden et al for the 1993 WTC attack, Khobar towers, African Embassies, USS Cole, etc before terrorism got out of hand and he would have gotten full support from the American people as well as both political parties. Too bad he didn’t try.
You don’t honestly believe this, do you? You had an entire party focused on Clinton’s sex life. There was so much crap flowing around due to the massive witch hunt for semen stains that there is no way he could have gained public support when the country perceived no threat worth the effort. People would have gladly sent their sons and husbands off to war for a “possible” threat?
Hind sight is 20/20. Apparently, gullibility just runs into you from your blind spot.
Actually, I do believe this was possible. I was/am a member of the Clinton hating right wing who was jumping up and down screaming for action after the USS Cole attack. I backed the Kosovo war effort, and I would have backed a start of a global war on terrorism. So would all of the other right wingers I have spoken to about this.
Hindsight is 20/20, so I will not convict Clinton of not doing enough. Clearly, if he had known 9/11 was coming and could have been averted he would have thrown everything he had at the problem. Unfortunately, as you say, he was tied up in the sex mongering scandal (too bad he was actually guilty as hell) and had very little political capital to spend. That is why a well laid out case, similar to what he did Sunday morning on Fox News, directly to the American people for support of this new global anti-terror initiative would have worked. It could have been a much more limited plan; ala strangle their finances, special forces attacks, allied nation involvement, etc. Personally, I believe he should have been tried, convicted, and possibly executed for crimes of treason (think nuclear weapons technology to China for campaign cash), but I would have supported him in a war effort.
What you fail to comprehend is that although we right wingers are hard core Clinton haters, we’re not completely blinded by our hate either and are willing to put the good of the USA ahead of politics (hint…hint…to you left wingers who are so caught up in Bush hatred you can’t see other evil in the world).
If I’m gullible, then the evidence is my willingness to give Clinton a complete pass for everything he claimed on FoxNews Sunday except for his hands being tied by a lack of FBI/CIA certification on the USS Cole attack. He can’t claim that, and he certainly can’t claim Bush didn’t retaliate either because his hands were as equally tied (or not); you can’t have it both ways!
I keep forgetting what Bush’s response to the Cole was when he KNEW who did it. Oh yeah, now I remember, nothing.
The more you belittle Clinton’s efforts, the worse Bush looks. (Factually Bush did NOTHING—oh well he did keep the newly armed predator grounded till 9/11 but that probably was a bad thing).
Attn: Wingnuts!
Factually speaking:
Clinton: did something.
Bush: did less.(with Clinton’s 8 years as hindsight no less!)[/quote]
Factually speaking Clinton did little to nothing in his term. In his interview, it sounded like he wanted to do more, but in fact he did little given the amount of terrorism on his watch.
Bush has done much more, but of course, with much more sense of urgency to do something following 9/11.
In hindsight the mistakes of each is easily seen. And yes, this goes back another 10-15 years pre Clinton, so the blame is plentiful.
My argument with this whole thread appeared to be the message was lost because of the tone. Then the message was refuted because of one contradicting source–Clark. What makes him more believable than Clinton. I’ve yet to hear any leading political figure from the Clinton years come out and publicly refute anything that he has just stated.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Please tell me you are not really this big of a humorless moron. Please tell me that this is a Thinking Tree attempt at cracking wise.[/quote]
Don’t get your panties in a wad…
If I was an American Soldier in Iraq I sure as hell wouldn’t feel this way. Ha!
what are you kidding me?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Rice is a mercenary; a gun for hire with absolutely no principles, who will lie, cheat or basically do or say ANYTHING to get what she is told to get. She’s a pit bull.
I’ve personally seen her cheating and lying many times, until she was finally replaced at Stanford. To this day, I’m immensely thankful she was never my boss – people who worked for her are still in therapy.[/quote]
Can you corroborate your claims that she is a liar and a cheat? You simply calling her a liar and a cheat means nothing. You routinely spout out your hyperbole here and this appears to be simply another example.
If she was so bad, explain her awards while she was at Stanford, specifically 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
“extensively leverages stereotypes…” is that how the left is now accusing a conservative minority of playing the race card. How sophisticated. That’s what I would expect from a senior faculty member from Stanford which has only 3% black faculty members. Verify at
http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/faculty.html
[quote]By the way, “successful” is a very relative term – her academic career was far from successful, for example – and not because she’s a conservative (she was a Democrat for a while, and turned when she saw her talents were more appreciated on the other side of the fence).
[/quote]
She is more educated than Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush, John Kerry, or Hilarious Clinton. And you didn’t comment on her successes in the political world. As the SecState, that should have been a greater focus in your answer than just the academic career.
And if the Republicans appreciate her talents more than the Democrats, that clearly indicates bigotry in the Democratic party. But then again, they did start the KKK and tried to block voting rights for blacks and integration, so I’m not surprised.
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Bush has done much more, but of course, with much more sense of urgency to do something following 9/11.
[/quote]
Explain how literally doing nothing is more?
When we KNEW who was responsible for the cole how did Bush respond to the Taliban?
oh and that predator drone?
oh and how about a meeting by the veeps terrorism task force?
oh annd deprioritizing terror?
And true post 9/11 he did so much more by creating more terrorist and new training grounds and motivating a global jihad against us. But see, I personally think he didn’t have to go “quite” that far.
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
If you’re handing out blame I think there’s plenty to go around for administrations going back at least to Carter.
…
Overall, Bush – not perfect. Clinton – not perfect either. Clinton gets points for recognizing the threat, negatives for not taking decisive action. Bush took decisive actions (how could he not in the face of 9/11), and now we’re arguing over how those actions could have been more effective.
I’m inclined to agree that the argument should focus on how to attack the problem moving forward.
As pure politics, I think this focus only helps the Republicans in '06, but it does not help to focus better on external threats.[/quote]
The facts, Kool-Aid free.
[quote]100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Bush has done much more, but of course, with much more sense of urgency to do something following 9/11.
Explain how literally doing nothing is more?
When we KNEW who was responsible for the cole how did Bush respond to the Taliban?
oh and that predator drone?
oh and how about a meeting by the veeps terrorism task force?
oh annd deprioritizing terror?
And true post 9/11 he did so much more by creating more terrorist and new training grounds and motivating a global jihad against us. But see, I personally think he didn’t have to go “quite” that far.
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.
[/quote]
You are blaming Bush for not retaliating for things that happened in Clinton’s admin?
Do you also blame Clinton for not retaliating for things that happened in Reagans admin?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Rice is a mercenary; a gun for hire with absolutely no principles, who will lie, cheat or basically do or say ANYTHING to get what she is told to get. She’s a pit bull.
I’ve personally seen her cheating and lying many times, until she was finally replaced at Stanford. To this day, I’m immensely thankful she was never my boss – people who worked for her are still in therapy.
That comes handy sometimes to some people, and that, along with the fact that she extensively leverages stereotypes to her advantage, has allowed her to reach her position.
By the way, “successful” is a very relative term – her academic career was far from successful, for example – and not because she’s a conservative (she was a Democrat for a while, and turned when she saw her talents were more appreciated on the other side of the fence).
[/quote]
Can you give us some substantiated examples of her cheating and lying? Maybe some hotel receipts or pics of her playing around with GWB?
Maybe she realized that dealing with a pack of liberals cannot be done in a rational manner…hmmmm? We have lots of libs here and they are pretty disfunctional.
Lib colleague: “I don’t respect anyone that listens to Rush — he’s an idiot!”
Me: “How do you know he’s an idiot? Ever listened to him?”
LC: “Nope, but I know he’s an idiot. Others have told me so.”
Me: “Ever thought of forming your own opinions?”
LC: Mutters and walks away.
[quote]100meters wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Bush has done much more, but of course, with much more sense of urgency to do something following 9/11.
Explain how literally doing nothing is more?
When we KNEW who was responsible for the cole how did Bush respond to the Taliban?
oh and that predator drone?
oh and how about a meeting by the veeps terrorism task force?
oh annd deprioritizing terror?
And true post 9/11 he did so much more by creating more terrorist and new training grounds and motivating a global jihad against us. But see, I personally think he didn’t have to go “quite” that far.
And as dire as the situation is he simply cannot muster the balls to address the issue in Iraq…no dramatic troop increases and no re-deployment. His only urgency was to use 9/11 for political gain by scaring the bejeebus out of the timid like Headhunter, Hedo, and Jeffr. It’s unfortunate that they are so scared that men in caves dictate their lives…pissing all over themselves as they pull the lever in november.
[/quote]
timid…you must be looking in the mirror dumbass. Tell us about your trigger time pogue. We got all day.
Scared…you’d shit your pants if you ever saw someone with an AK.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Me: “Ever thought of forming your own opinions?”
[/quote]
That’s pretty fucking ironic coming from someone who looks to Anne Cuntler every day to see what his opinion should be.