[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Funny, though, how you don’t answer simple questions, but continue your personal attack.
What incentive do I have to actually spend time answering your questions? You have made up your mind; no amount of explanation I can provide will change it.
[/quote]
Perhaps because you have no answers. That is why you get into personal attacks. Doesn’t faze me, but it really doesn’t do anything for your credibility.
[quote]ChuckyT wrote:
Zeppelin795 wrote:
Oh yeah the party I voted for in the last 2 elections hasn’t came close but I’m okay knowing that I voted with my conscious instead of the lesser of 2 evils.
Please continue to vote your “conscious”, so the grown-ups don’t have to waste a vote cancelling out yours.[/quote]
And keep swigging down the propagamda you so obviously feed on. It’s doing you and the population alot of good. Be proud!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Does that bet include crack dealers and East Palo Alto? Just checkin’. =-)[/quote]
Actually we’re doing our best to help that side of the road:
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Perhaps because you have no answers.[/quote]
I do – I’ve laid them out extensively. If you prefer to tell yourself I don’t and continue to ignore them, that is your choice… mine is to no longer continue to entertain you.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Doesn’t faze me, but it really doesn’t do anything for your credibility.[/quote]
Do you really think I’m even trying to gain any type of credibility here?
On the contrary – I find that most right-wing conservatives that know me in real life tend to measure their words carefully when I’m around, so I rarely know what they’re REALLY thinking, as much as I try to bait them.
Over here, however, it has become increasingly easier to bait my political opponents into sharing their true personality and motivations… of course that erodes my “street cred”, but do you think I really care?
The fact that it allows me to separate the intelligent from the moronic and the insane more than makes up for it.
I’ve also found it to be a great source of entertainment, and a great way to relax after long hours of analysis meetings.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…[/quote]
LOL! Now THAT’S quality! Steve, that was just exactly what OUR president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would’ve said. I can even almost hear him saying it. That WAS a good one!
HH
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.
Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.
Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.
HH
You leave out the fact that he ordered his secret police to torture his people into the 20th century. Can’t hate Saddam and love the Shah. They have to much in common.[/quote]
Never said the guy was a prince among men. He was nowhere near as bad as Saddam and was civilizing a barbaric country.
[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Perhaps because you have no answers.
I do – I’ve laid them out extensively. If you prefer to tell yourself I don’t and continue to ignore them, that is your choice… mine is to no longer continue to entertain you.
steveo5801 wrote:
Doesn’t faze me, but it really doesn’t do anything for your credibility.
Do you really think I’m even trying to gain any type of credibility here?
On the contrary – I find that most right-wing conservatives that know me in real life tend to measure their words carefully when I’m around, so I rarely know what they’re REALLY thinking, as much as I try to bait them.
Over here, however, it has become increasingly easier to bait my political opponents into sharing their true personality and motivations… of course that erodes my “street cred”, but do you think I really care?
The fact that it allows me to separate the intelligent from the moronic and the insane more than makes up for it.
I’ve also found it to be a great source of entertainment, and a great way to relax after long hours of analysis meetings.
[/quote]
Translation: If you don’t agree with me, then you are moronic and insane. Others keep their opinions to themselves around me because, if they try to debate me, I call them psychotic, moronic, and insane.
I am also like a spider, waiting for someone to step into my trap. Its a great way to relax after long hours planning how to further fuck up the world.
HH
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Sure I can because that’s what the FACTS show.
(1) Clinton in office for 8 years and the people responsible for 9/11 planned and plotted during that time and sent their people here for training to fly. All under Clinton’s watch.
(2) Bush takes office and is in office for 7 months and “bam” we get hit. Look at what Bush did right away. He rid the Earth of the Taliban and then got rid of Sadaam. This all within what 2 years or 3 years or so.
So, Billy Clinton in office for 8 years. We get hit.
Bush in for 3 years – he begins to wipe out the terrorists who flourished while “BJ” Clinton was getting his BJ’s in the WH for two terms.
This is not having it both ways – it is merely stating the facts. The facts, my friend, are just not on your side.[/quote]
What are your views on what Richard Clarke says in his book? (Against All Enemies)
He claims that Clinton got quite the wake up call from the first attacks on the WTC in '93 and from then on had regular briefings from all his security advisors.
He claims that once Bush took office, he got rid of those briefings about terrorists, because he was looking for dirt on Iraq. I think the expression was that he was tired of “swatting at flies.”
Clarke was an insider on both administrations; didn’t he have better access to the actual facts, more so than anyone with an asshole and an opinion (which, of course, are proclaimed “facts”) on this board?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…
LOL! Now THAT’S quality! Steve, that was just exactly what OUR president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would’ve said. I can even almost hear him saying it. That WAS a good one!
HH
[/quote]
Are you two gay lovers or something?
[quote]lucasa wrote:
…
2) The man says Kennedy brought us within inches of a nuclear holocaust and then says that Bush’s actions are far more grievous, and you’re calling him independent? I’m not so hot on everything the Pres. has done, but he has clearly managed not to endanger the entire planet.[/quote]
Only if you forget about his wreckless attitude towards globar warming.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Has anybody been blown up since? Do you even realize that the 9/11 attacks were due mainly to Clinton’s inaction in confronting terrorism?
…
Was Clinton sitting in his Texas ranch the month before the attacks? Was he reading in a class during the attacks? Did he continue to read after he was informed of the attacks?
Did he run for cover for several days?
No, that’s what your cowboy did.
No Clinton was too busy hitting on WH interns for EIGHT YEARS – 8 YEARS while Al Qaida got stronger and stronger and sent their evildoers here for pilot training – ALL UNDER BILLY BOY!
Of course, you don’t want the facts now do you?
[/quote]
Refresh my mind. What year was 9/11?
And what year was W. selected?
And what happened to “the buck stops here”?
What did Condy do when she was briefed about the Al Qaida threat? She yawned. That’s what.
They didn’t care about Al Qaida. They wanted to go after Iraq. And that’s what they did.
[quote]hspder wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Perhaps because you have no answers.
I do – I’ve laid them out extensively. If you prefer to tell yourself I don’t and continue to ignore them, that is your choice… mine is to no longer continue to entertain you.
steveo5801 wrote:
Doesn’t faze me, but it really doesn’t do anything for your credibility.
Do you really think I’m even trying to gain any type of credibility here?
On the contrary – I find that most right-wing conservatives that know me in real life tend to measure their words carefully when I’m around, so I rarely know what they’re REALLY thinking, as much as I try to bait them.
Over here, however, it has become increasingly easier to bait my political opponents into sharing their true personality and motivations… of course that erodes my “street cred”, but do you think I really care?
The fact that it allows me to separate the intelligent from the moronic and the insane more than makes up for it.
I’ve also found it to be a great source of entertainment, and a great way to relax after long hours of analysis meetings.
[/quote]
I agree – but the question is who’s playing whom? lol
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…
LOL! Now THAT’S quality! Steve, that was just exactly what OUR president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would’ve said. I can even almost hear him saying it. That WAS a good one!
HH
[/quote]
Sure, encourage the silly boy, why don’t you.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
rainjack wrote:
The worst president post WWII has to be either Carter, or Johnson.
Carter was the one that allowed terrorism to take root, and Johnson was almost single handedly responsible for the escalation of Viet Nam.
Carter’s betrayal of the Shah of Iran could be rated one of the blackest marks against ANY president. Betraying a man who’s trying to bring his people out of the 7th century into the 20th…that is beyond forgiveness.
HH
You leave out the fact that he ordered his secret police to torture his people into the 20th century. Can’t hate Saddam and love the Shah. They have to much in common.
Never said the guy was a prince among men. He was nowhere near as bad as Saddam and was civilizing a barbaric country.
[/quote]
He was a brutal dicatator torturing his people.
Some facts for you:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html
[quote]pookie wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Sure I can because that’s what the FACTS show.
(1) Clinton in office for 8 years and the people responsible for 9/11 planned and plotted during that time and sent their people here for training to fly. All under Clinton’s watch.
(2) Bush takes office and is in office for 7 months and “bam” we get hit. Look at what Bush did right away. He rid the Earth of the Taliban and then got rid of Sadaam. This all within what 2 years or 3 years or so.
So, Billy Clinton in office for 8 years. We get hit.
Bush in for 3 years – he begins to wipe out the terrorists who flourished while “BJ” Clinton was getting his BJ’s in the WH for two terms.
This is not having it both ways – it is merely stating the facts. The facts, my friend, are just not on your side.
What are your views on what Richard Clarke says in his book? (Against All Enemies)
He claims that Clinton got quite the wake up call from the first attacks on the WTC in '93 and from then on had regular briefings from all his security advisors.
He claims that once Bush took office, he got rid of those briefings about terrorists, because he was looking for dirt on Iraq. I think the expression was that he was tired of “swatting at flies.”
Clarke was an insider on both administrations; didn’t he have better access to the actual facts, more so than anyone with an asshole and an opinion (which, of course, are proclaimed “facts”) on this board?
[/quote]
I don’t know and unfortunately I have little time to read Mr. Clark’s book.
However, I would think that since Clinton was in office for 7 more years after the first WTC attack, and since Bin Landen & Company were plotting this during the Clinton presidency and since some, if not all, the terrorists were already in pilot training during Clinton’s term and since Bush was in office for only 7 months (as compared with 7 years), at the very least Clinton bears some responsibility here.
My point was simply that Clinton failed to stop this which was possible since he presided during much of the plotting and moving toward 9/11/01.
What Bush was responsible for was the response due to the attacks which I believe he has done an excellently in so doing.
[quote]pookie wrote:
What are your views on what Richard Clarke says in his book? (Against All Enemies)
He claims that Clinton got quite the wake up call from the first attacks on the WTC in '93 and from then on had regular briefings from all his security advisors.
He claims that once Bush took office, he got rid of those briefings about terrorists, because he was looking for dirt on Iraq. I think the expression was that he was tired of “swatting at flies.”
Clarke was an insider on both administrations; didn’t he have better access to the actual facts, more so than anyone with an asshole and an opinion (which, of course, are proclaimed “facts”) on this board?
[/quote]
Good post Pookie.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…
LOL! Now THAT’S quality! Steve, that was just exactly what OUR president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would’ve said. I can even almost hear him saying it. That WAS a good one!
HH
Are you two gay lovers or something?[/quote]
Vroom,
I think you are projecting your own latent homosexual tendencies onto others. You should really get to know “forlife” a bit better.
The both of you are like old crochety washer women. You really will get along quite well with him, or her, or it, or whatever…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
blah blah blah[/quote]
Steveo, shouldn’t be reading the Bible and whacking off to the majesty of God or something?
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
BTW – You really need God in your life. You sound like a crochety old washer woman…
LOL! Now THAT’S quality! Steve, that was just exactly what OUR president, Ronald Wilson Reagan, would’ve said. I can even almost hear him saying it. That WAS a good one!
HH
Are you two gay lovers or something?[/quote]
Now that’s funny too! Not as much as Steve made me laugh though…his was better.
Really, living in your mom’s basement, you should have more time to think up better than that though. And when you say that someone’s remark made YOU laugh, does that make YOU their gay lover?
HH
[quote]Wreckless wrote:
lucasa wrote:
…
2) The man says Kennedy brought us within inches of a nuclear holocaust and then says that Bush’s actions are far more grievous, and you’re calling him independent? I’m not so hot on everything the Pres. has done, but he has clearly managed not to endanger the entire planet.
Only if you forget about his wreckless attitude towards globar warming.[/quote]
Wow, I know I’m probably not the first to say this but, you continually prove yourself to be an absolute retard and that’s an insult to the mentally challenged. Would you really stand behind the idea that Bush would be as responsible for global warming as Kennedy would be for the hypothetical holocaust? Would you really stand behind the idea that any single person is responsible for or capable of changing global warming? Or do you just defecate on your keyboard and if it spells some words you hit “submit”?