[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
You invoked Vince Foster for F sake.
The only people you do that are Freepers.[/quote]
How hard is it for you to read further down where I pretty much retract what I said?
And anyone who refuses to admit that Foster’s death was, at the very least, shady must be a card carrying member of the DU.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
doogie wrote:
The liberals know in their heart of hearts that abortion is murder. College guys and castrated men pretend to be pro-choice in the hopes of someday getting in the panties of some hairy-armpitted NOW member, but they won’t put the issue above national security. Most women take a pro-choice stand purely because they don’t like the idea of being controlled by men, not because they think abortion is morally right.
In the end, abortion is not an issue the left will ever really rally over.
Christian conservatives (a group to which I definitely do not belong)think their everlasting soul is on the line when they enter the ballot box. That is a completely different mentallity.
This is the best part of this thread, and it’s not even on topic.
Vroom, you owe me an hour of my life back.
I saw how big this thread was getting, and decided that it might be worth reading.
YAWN
This has got to be the most boring “scandal” ever. No BJ’s, no DNA evidence on blue dresses, no cigar-play… dammit, it’s all I can do to stay awake through this senseless crap.
Let me get this straight:
Some fool named “Scooter” (holy shit) maybe said something about somebody who might be undercover CIA to somebody else?
Where’s the tanks spewing fire into buildings? Where’s the stormtroopers poking assault rifles into illegal immigrant children’s faces? WHERE’S THE HAND JOBS GIVEN BY INTERNS DURING PHONE CALLS TO OTHER WORLD LEADERS??
Man, Clinton had it all. He knew what the hell he was doing. This Bush guy is lamer than lame. I guarantee that Bush has never had sex in the oval office.
Vote democrat in '08!! If it’s Hillary, I’ll take one for the team and do her in the oval office just to break this horrific “scandal ennui” we’ve been suffering ever since Bush got elected.
I better get some nice gifts out of it though. I ain’t boinking that bitch for free.[/quote]
I just shit my pants! Funny stuff.
If men could get pregnant Wal-Mart would sell abortions.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
If men could get pregnant Wal-Mart would sell abortions.[/quote]
Truer words have not been spoken!
[quote]doogie wrote:
chadman wrote:
Doogie,
Excellent tour through Clinton history. I still think a blowjob in the White House would make things more interesting. Did I ever say Clinton or his cronies were saints? Hell no. If you’ve read some of my other posts, I didn’t even vote for the guy for his second term. Without ANY scandals, I would still think that W., Cheney et al were arrogant assholes who will do whatever it takes to push their agenda of corporate greed, environmental abuse and cowboy diplomacy.
I don’t care what you think. What you wrote was:
Even if this fades away, W., Cheney, Frist, DeLay, et al are doing plenty of other crap to make people think again about voting Republican in the near future.
I wasn’t diverting attention to Clinton, saying he was worse. I was just pointing out that people don’t pay attention to shit like this. That summary I posted above didn’t even deal with Ruby Ridge or the slaughter of the people in Waco. If Clinton could get re-elected after all of the above, you’d have to be a moron to think this “scandal” is going to affect the Republican party as a whole.
Regarding your opinion of my thoughts on Roe v. Wade. Fuck you. So what if it’s a state by state issue? Do you think the Christian movement is going to be happy just having Roe v. Wade overturned, or do you think they will try to, state by state, get abortion made illegal. You made my point exactly you dildo. Most people do want abortion kept legal, and getting them out to the polls in a state by state basis to defend that right will also mean more votes for the democrats who support that right. Much like the anti-gay marriage issues on so many state ballots in the past election helped to mobilize the Republican base.
Don’t be such a myopic arrogant shithead.
For now this is all just mental masturbation, but someday you will see where you went wrong in your analysis.
The truth is there are a lot more liberals who pretend to be “pro-choice” than “right of center” people who “won’t admit it, but they want their daughter to be able to terminate a pregnancy if some pimply faced pinky commie knocks her up”.
The liberals know in their heart of hearts that abortion is murder. College guys and castrated men pretend to be pro-choice in the hopes of someday getting in the panties of some hairy-armpitted NOW member, but they won’t put the issue above national security. Most women take a pro-choice stand purely because they don’t like the idea of being controlled by men, not because they think abortion is morally right.
In the end, abortion is not an issue the left will ever really rally over.
Christian conservatives (a group to which I definitely do not belong)think their everlasting soul is on the line when they enter the ballot box. That is a completely different mentallity.
[/quote]
I, obviously, disagree with your assertion about Democrats ability to be mobilized by the abortion issue. You could be right, but so could I. The point is my original argument is far from the dumbest thing ever posted on this site. And you were being a myopic arrogant shithead for saying it was.
You do make a good point about the Christian conservatives feeling that their soul is on the line when they set foot in the ballot box. I still contend, and I have truly seen this in person, many “good Christian’s” have been down at Planned Parenthood when it was their daughter that got knocked up.
I certainly wish unwanted pregnancies didn’t happen and that abortions were rare. However, I think it silly to have them completely illegal.
I don’t see why the choice is between abortion and national security in your eyes. Are the Democrats somehow incapable of keeping us as secure as the Republicans can?
[quote]chadman wrote:
…
I don’t see why the choice is between abortion and national security in your eyes. Are the Democrats somehow incapable of keeping us as secure as the Republicans can?[/quote]
The way they vote and the people that seem to speak for the Dems do make it look that way.
The Dems have been on the wrong side of most national security issues for a long time.
Just as the Republicans are negatively influenced by the extremists on many issues, the Democrats have been negatively influenced on national security for a long time. They make it far too easy for the Republicans.
Sure, but only as long as you can admit that the Bush administration appears to have diddled national security for political benefit in this affair.
–
The only reason some of you right wing nuts think (you are wrong) that the left has been weak on national security is because not everyone believes the entire world is currently a legitimate threat.
Shit, with several thousand dead in Iraq, you are bitching that some folks have bombed embassies or ships via terrorist attack in the past. A dead person is a dead person, not much has really changed.
Well, you have a huge national debt and a dysfunctional administration, so I guess something has in fact changed.
–
You know, you don’t actually do the republican party or right wing movement any favors by sticking your head in the sand and saying that the administration can do no wrong.
P.S. Clinton has been gone for a long long time now. Maybe you should find another scapegoat for all the worlds woes?
[quote]vroom wrote:
And anyone who refuses to admit that Foster’s death was, at the very least, shady must be a card carrying member of the DU.
Sure, but only as long as you can admit that the Bush administration appears to have diddled national security for political benefit in this affair.
…[/quote]
This is silly. Even if a grand conspiracy took place to out Plame, it did nothing to damage national security. She is completely irrelevant to national security.
She was an ambassadors wife. How many secrets do you think our enemies were giving her? The very idea that she could even be considered undercover is foolish. Perhaps Laura Bush is an undercover agent too. Oops, I blew her cover, now Bin Laden won’t tell her where he is hiding.
At worst it was dirty politics and it actually looks more like incompetence than dirty politics.
As usual the real crime is thinking they are above they law and can cover up.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If Clinton had done his job better, perhaps we could have avoided this war.
[/quote]
Nope. You wish. This is a multi-administration tangle, and 41 is in it too. The question was not one of avoiding the war.
The question is why did it get bungled: launched on a lie, without adequate multi-lateral support for the end-game, and arranged in a milieu of total intellectal dishonesty that left us without a post-invasion plan, other than picking up the flowers that were gonna get tossed at us.
Where was Clinton’s part in all that?
Anybody who’d like to get a better handle on what’s been driving this thing should read The New American Militarism by Andrew Bacevich. Seriously. This guy is not an ideologue, he’s an historian - and a West Point educated historian at that. Republicans can read in safety.
He teases our progress toward militarism over the last several decades into several threads: reaction of the military following Viet Nam, including the Reagan build up, the rise of evangelism and the change in its attitudes about war, the conservative movement and how it bought into a Wilsonian interventionist nightmare. The development of our dependence on foreign oil and how this affected our political position in the Middle East. The expansion of the military-industrial complex. The effects of Kosovo and Somalia on neo-con thought. He puts a lot of the relevant history together.
'Course it’s more fun to just bash your least favorite ex-president.
[quote]vroom wrote:
And anyone who refuses to admit that Foster’s death was, at the very least, shady must be a card carrying member of the DU.
Sure, but only as long as you can admit that the Bush administration appears to have diddled national security for political benefit in this affair.
[/quote]
Hardly the same thing. Show me a dead body in the Whitehouse under the Bush Admin, and you may have a point.
The parallell between Clinton and Bush was brought up by a lefty - not the right.
You believe whatever you want to, vroom. But your partisanship here is laughable. At least I don’t pretend to be impartial. I feely admit that I am a conservative. You are as partisan - if not more so - than I am. I think you are about the only person on here that doesn’t see it.
But to excuse Clinton from any responsiblity in our current state of affairs - as you seem very eager to do - is the pinnacle of ABB partisanship.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is silly. Even if a grand conspiracy took place to out Plame, it did nothing to damage national security. She is completely irrelevant to national security.
[/quote]
Zap, dude, she was a clandestine CIA operative working on gathering information about nuclear proliferation. When she got outed, a bunch of other stuff (sources and co-workers) to do with that effort went out from under cover with her. Not so irrelevant!
Where do you get your facts from anyhow? The comics page?
Ahahahaha. Is there even any kool-aid left after you finish drinking?
Getting beyond the arguable point of whether or not she was currently actively engaged in espionage, or being held as an asset capable of such, there is the small matter of the front company being blown as well.
Other countries, for a fact, have done internal investigations based on the release of this information to see if there were any points of contact between her and potential points of interest. If that doesn’t point to compromising national security interests you have your head so far up your own ass that you can’t tell the difference between night and day.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
vroom wrote:
And anyone who refuses to admit that Foster’s death was, at the very least, shady must be a card carrying member of the DU.
Sure, but only as long as you can admit that the Bush administration appears to have diddled national security for political benefit in this affair.
Hardly the same thing. Show me a dead body in the Whitehouse under the Bush Admin, and you may have a point.
The parallell between Clinton and Bush was brought up by a lefty - not the right.
You believe whatever you want to, vroom. But your partisanship here is laughable. At least I don’t pretend to be impartial. I feely admit that I am a conservative. You are as partisan - if not more so - than I am. I think you are about the only person on here that doesn’t see it.
But to excuse Clinton from any responsiblity in our current state of affairs - as you seem very eager to do - is the pinnacle of ABB partisanship.
[/quote]
How 'bout 2,000 dead bodies in Iraq?
But, just keep repeating “ABB” over and over and over. Eventually, you’ll be right about something.
[quote]vroom wrote:
She was an ambassadors wife. How many secrets do you think our enemies were giving her? The very idea that she could even be considered undercover is foolish. Perhaps Laura Bush is an undercover agent too. Oops, I blew her cover, now Bin Laden won’t tell her where he is hiding.
Ahahahaha. Is there even any kool-aid left after you finish drinking?
Getting beyond the arguable point of whether or not she was currently actively engaged in espionage, or being held as an asset capable of such, there is the small matter of the front company being blown as well.
Other countries, for a fact, have done internal investigations based on the release of this information to see if there were any points of contact between her and potential points of interest. If that doesn’t point to compromising national security interests you have your head so far up your own ass that you can’t tell the difference between night and day.
[/quote]
Good point Vroom! Kinda like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. It’s not so much what kind of superspy Valerie Plame was or wasn’t, but outing her could have also, by association, outed contacts around the globe.
In times of crisis, I don’t see that the Dems would do much different than the Reps. Except maybe not send us into the Iraq mess. Can any of you righties let me know just how worried you were about us being attacked by terrorists on Clinton’s watch? Even after the first trade center bombings, I bet you didn’t give it much thought. Except maybe you Tim McVeigh nut jobs who always are worried about gays, blacks, ragheads, or whomever attacking our moral fiber.
The truth be told, no Republican will think anything Clinton did was good and no Democrat will think that W. could possibly do anything right.
Those of us left in the middle are stuck with choosing issues like the environment or abortion or capital punishment or quotas or whatever.
Neither side suites me personally.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If Clinton had done his job better, perhaps we could have avoided this war.
[/quote]
At the risk of starting shit, if the FIRST Bush had done HIS job (Desert Storm) and captured Saddam in the first place, we could have avoided this war. He also might have gotten re-elected to a second term.
You wish!
I’m trying to outline that liberals are not weak in international affairs, they just focus on other ideas instead of only the concept that “might makes right”. This doesn’t mean they exclude it, but just that they consider other issues as well.
As for the Bush bashing going on, it seems that in this particular case his administration brought it upon themselves, much like when Clinton brought a world of hurt to himself when he was getting blowjobs.
I don’t see you don’t see that as being pretty fair… blaming both administrations for the mistakes they make, but then again, I’m not at partisan as you, and I’m not trying to win anything… unlike you.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
How 'bout 2,000 dead bodies in Iraq?
But, just keep repeating “ABB” over and over and over. Eventually, you’ll be right about something.
[/quote]
Oh - I forgot Bush lied, people died.
You are making me right every time you open your stupid moth. You have never uttered a single word on here that you didn’t copy from MoveOn.org.
You are the poster child of the DU/ABB gang.
[quote]ALDurr wrote:
At the risk of starting shit, if the FIRST Bush had done HIS job (Desert Storm) and captured Saddam in the first place, we could have avoided this war. He also might have gotten re-elected to a second term.[/quote]
Bush I was only enforcing a UN resolution. He felt he didn’t have the authority to go after Hussein.
I agree with everything you said, but in defense of Bush - he did only as much as he had authority to do. Personally - I think he was in a no-win situation.
Had he gone after Hussein - he would have been crucified by the left, just like Bush junior. Instead, he did only what he had authority to do, and the Monday morning QB’s roasted him for that.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
At the risk of starting shit, if the FIRST Bush had done HIS job (Desert Storm) and captured Saddam in the first place, we could have avoided this war. He also might have gotten re-elected to a second term.
Bush I was only enforcing a UN resolution. He felt he didn’t have the authority to go after Hussein.
I agree with everything you said, but in defense of Bush - he did only as much as he had authority to do. Personally - I think he was in a no-win situation.
Had he gone after Hussein - he would have been crucified by the left, just like Bush junior. Instead, he did only what he had authority to do, and the Monday morning QB’s roasted him for that.
[/quote]
I have more of a problem with him asking the Kurds to rise up against Saddam and implying that we would back them up if they did…then leaving them in the lurch to get slaughtered.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
How 'bout 2,000 dead bodies in Iraq?
But, just keep repeating “ABB” over and over and over. Eventually, you’ll be right about something.
Oh - I forgot Bush lied, people died.
You are making me right every time you open your stupid moth. You have never uttered a single word on here that you didn’t copy from MoveOn.org.
You are the poster child of the DU/ABB gang.
[/quote]
Hey! More repeating stuff! Wow, never would’ve figured, you free-thinker, you!
ABB! Again!
Please come up with something new.