Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » OT: Political IQ Test
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67599] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 16:27   |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
Some other things Clinton thwarted:
1) Bomb attack against UN Headquarters
2) Bomb attack against the FBI Building
3) Bomb attacj against the Israeli embassy in Washington
4) Bomb attack against the LA and Boston Airports
5) Bomb attack against the Lincoln and Holland tunnels
6) Bomb attack against the George Washington bridge
|
Some other things Clinton DIDN'T thwart:
1.) Bombing of USS Cole (an attack on a US warship is an act of war, and el presidente did jack shit about it).
2.) Oklahoma City bombing- not organized terror, but nevertheless a very serious attack that was not prevented.
3.) A military DEBACLE in Mogadishu, Somalia- when US troops were pinned down in the city, Clinton actually refused to provide them with tank support- the local commander ended up having to beg Pakistani troops to BORROW armor support. His decision resulted in more US casualties, and when he pulled US troops out, he didn't even bother to recover the bodies of the dead, which were left to be desecrated. Real great job he did there.
If you want, I could go find more. Clinton was a piece of shit for a president.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67618] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 17:45 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Look, I posted just the first part of a large poster. LESS THAN 10% of it. And the point of the poster is NOT to nitpick at the details. As I already stated, the poster is entitled "A course of conduct". It's really only through reading the entire poster and the 90%+ I haven't typed out that you get the true perspective of why Clinton was a bad guy to have in that office.
I also like how Clinton spent more money going after Bill Gates than he did going after Osama Bin Laden. :rolleyes: Guess he couldn't handle Bill not giving large donations to him.
And yes, they are different things. I am NOT a loyal listener who relies on Rush for all my political news and views. I had never visited his website until a couple of days ago. Therefore, YOU CAN'T TRY AND LUMP ME WITH THE PEOPLE YOU ARE QUOTING. I simply do NOT fit the demographic. Therefore, pulling up the supposed, ALLEGED stupidity of Rush listeners is a huge waste of time and completely irrelevant. Just because I happen to agree with some of his research does not make me a "rushhead", and also, just because Rush isn't 100% right 100% of the time doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie or total bullshit.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67626] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 17:52 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
first and foremost i would like to ay this:
congratulations blazer, you have no life!!! 
ok done with that. sorry bout that whole fahrenheit 451 thing it made a lot more sense when i thought of it and it didnt come out exactly right . . .
crimson- you are saying that people dont care about people gettin locked up for checking out ceratin books, etc. etc. maybe not but think of how WWE look now. god, i cant remember te books name but it starts out with a man finding two men in his house there to arrrest him, they wont tell him why and he cannot have a lawyer, i think it might be The Trial or something... picture having to deal with that, that is complet bullshit.
unfortunately, i am going to have to disagree with you, superflyingengl, i think kerry would be a HORRIBLE president, he would be way better than bush (which is not saying much) but crimson is right, kerry changed around what he said to try and gain popularity. he voted for the war, and the patriot act (it might have been NCLB) but it was one of those. kerry is more a republican than democrat, but right now i would vote for him, just cuz he is better than that jackass edwards
abot al sharpton, i dont really want him to win i just think he is frigin hilarious 
ACK if you are getting so uptight about mentioning hitler, you might want to note it was one of your republican buddies who mentioned it. also you might have heard the saying history repeats itself. in my opinoin PBJ/jorge the man made an excellent point in relating the war to racism and the whole WW2 thing.
^^^crimson- yes it does 
[Updated on: Fri, 20 February 2004 17:55] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67629] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 17:54 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I assure you Blazer has a life and gets laid a lot... it doesn't take "not having a life" to click the "ip" button and seeing the forum software immediately say that the IP matches another poster's IP.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67631] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 17:57 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
crimson, how would you know blazer gets laid a lot??
i think i have a more appropriate script for this
http://www.georgewbush.com/angrydemocrats/
tired of freeedom of speech . . .?
tired of someone telling the truth . . .?
tired of people standing up and fighting for what they believe in . . .?
then vote for george bush in 2004, he'll make sure that'll stop
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67642] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 18:13 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Llama Man 451 |
crimson, how would you know blazer gets laid a lot??
|
Someone needs to brush up on their forum 101... or at least on forum relationships 103..
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67657] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 18:57 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
1.) Bombing of USS Cole (an attack on a US warship is an act of war, and el presidente did jack shit about it).
2.) Oklahoma City bombing- not organized terror, but nevertheless a very serious attack that was not prevented.
3.) A military DEBACLE in Mogadishu, Somalia- when US troops were pinned down in the city, Clinton actually refused to provide them with tank support- the local commander ended up having to beg Pakistani troops to BORROW armor support. His decision resulted in more US casualties, and when he pulled US troops out, he didn't even bother to recover the bodies of the dead, which were left to be desecrated. Real great job he did there.
|
Duh-Duh-Didn't-Read-My-Post Unit.
1) You didn't read my post: Here: I said that Clinton got super pissed and appointed Richard Clarke to make a plan to kill al Qaeda once and for all. Why isn't al Qaeda gone yet? Because Bush didn't follow up on Clinton's plan.
2) After this, Clinton proposed to expand wiretap capabilities for intelligence agencies, which was fought against by the Republican congress on stupid issues which I won't put here because it's kind of long so go and READ MY POST!
3) This didn't have anything to do about terrorists. It was a UN peacekeeping mission to settle Somalia down. Clinton didn't go after the dead? You know what would have happened if that task force did? A lot more of them would have died. But I guess it's all in a day's work. Why didn't Clinton send more armor in? Maybe because there was already armor there that the task force could use? It would have taken probably longer to ship in armor and get it all set up then to borrow some from other allied military factions. Did you ever read the book, Black Hawk Down? It's a really good book. I haven't seen the movie, but I don't think it would measure up to the book. That whole Somalia situation was pretty ugly, because the U.S. sent in a task force [composed of people from Ranger and Delta forces] hoping to help these people, and then everyone turned on them and then they got in to a huge firefight in the city. That's why there were so many casualties.
| Crimson |
Look, I posted just the first part of a large poster. LESS THAN 10% of it. And the point of the poster is NOT to nitpick at the details. As I already stated, the poster is entitled "A course of conduct". It's really only through reading the entire poster and the 90%+ I haven't typed out that you get the true perspective of why Clinton was a bad guy to have in that office.
|
Well, lets see the whole poster, so I can have a nice laugh. Then show you why it's wrong.
| Crimson |
I also like how Clinton spent more money going after Bill Gates than he did going after Osama Bin Laden. Guess he couldn't handle Bill not giving large donations to him.
|
If Clinton had one more term, he probably would have rolled up Osama and most of al Qaeda. Like I said before, he had an expert make a detailed plan, but didn't havve time to implement it before Bush jr. became president, and then Bush never bothered to use it. [Yes, Clinton did give it to Bush jr.]
| Crimson |
And yes, they are different things. I am NOT a loyal listener who relies on Rush for all my political news and views. I had never visited his website until a couple of days ago. Therefore, YOU CAN'T TRY AND LUMP ME WITH THE PEOPLE YOU ARE QUOTING. I simply do NOT fit the demographic. Therefore, pulling up the supposed, ALLEGED stupidity of Rush listeners is a huge waste of time and completely irrelevant. Just because I happen to agree with some of his research does not make me a "rushhead", and also, just because Rush isn't 100% right 100% of the time doesn't mean that everything he says is a lie or total bullshit.
|
OK, lets just drop the whole Rush thing. I don't like him, and I gave my reasons.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67675] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 19:58 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
1) You didn't read my post: Here: I said that Clinton got super pissed and appointed Richard Clarke to make a plan to kill al Qaeda once and for all. Why isn't al Qaeda gone yet? Because Bush didn't follow up on Clinton's plan.
|
Clinton fired a few cruise missiles at supposed al Qaeda headquarters locations, and they all missed. That's the extent of what he did. Appointing people does nothing if immediate action is not taken.
| Quote: |
2) After this, Clinton proposed to expand wiretap capabilities for intelligence agencies, which was fought against by the Republican congress on stupid issues which I won't put here because it's kind of long so go and READ MY POST!
|
Wiretaps. Great, how about increased security around govenment buildings? So that some asshole with a truckload of fertilizer can't park at the front gate and blow the place apart?
| Quote: |
3) This didn't have anything to do about terrorists. It was a UN peacekeeping mission to settle Somalia down. Clinton didn't go after the dead? You know what would have happened if that task force did? A lot more of them would have died. But I guess it's all in a day's work.
|
The US Army Rangers have an unwritten rule that no one gets left behind, living or dead.Clinton forced a withdrawal when US forces could have, should have, and would have brought back the dead so their families would not have to watch their mutilated bodies being dragged through the streets.
| Quote: |
Why didn't Clinton send more armor in? Maybe because there was already armor there that the task force could use? It would have taken probably longer to ship in armor and get it all set up then to borrow some from other allied military factions.
|
Perhaps because there was US armor already in the area? The Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't help much, either; we should have had our own tanks in there- that could have been done very quickly, much faster than going through someone else's chain of command.
| Quote: |
Did you ever read the book, Black Hawk Down? It's a really good book. I haven't seen the movie, but I don't think it would measure up to the book. That whole Somalia situation was pretty ugly, because the U.S. sent in a task force [composed of people from Ranger and Delta forces] hoping to help these people, and then everyone turned on them and then they got in to a huge firefight in the city. That's why there were so many casualties.
|
The objective was to capture a warlord because all of the aid being sent in was being confiscated by his goons and not going to the Somaili people. That could have been accomplished. There were more than enough US troops, armor assets, and aircraft in the region to do that. Clinton pulled out instead.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67686] |
Fri, 20 February 2004 20:58 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 |
Clinton fired a few cruise missiles at supposed al Qaeda headquarters locations, and they all missed. That's the extent of what he did. Appointing people does nothing if immediate action is not taken.
|
Do you make it your business to not comprehend what you read? I said he had a large plan to scour al Qaeda from the face of the earth, but finished it weeks before Bush jrs inauguration, and didn't want to have Bush start off his presidency with a small-scale war on his hands.
| NukeIt15 |
Wiretaps. Great, how about increased security around govenment buildings? So that some asshole with a truckload of fertilizer can't park at the front gate and blow the place apart?
|
With more extensive wiretapping and other such surveillance, the U.S. could know that these attacks were coming and more intelligently deploy large forces around buildings they knew would be attacked as a last resort. By increasing security around government buildings, what do you mean? Have 20 guards watching every building 24/7 and build huge conrete walls around every concievable target? It just isn't feasible. Using intelligence to know that the attack will come is a far better alternative.
| NukeIt15 |
The US Army Rangers have an unwritten rule that no one gets left behind, living or dead.Clinton forced a withdrawal when US forces could have, should have, and would have brought back the dead so their families would not have to watch their mutilated bodies being dragged through the streets.
|
Sometimes people in high places have to step in and give orders that not everyone will agree with in order to preserve human life. Here, if the Rangers had gone back, we could have lost 30-50 more soldiers and millions of dollars of equipment looking for bodies. You know, it takes some really crazy people to drag corpses around a city as in a parade.
| NukeIt15 |
Perhaps because there was US armor already in the area? The Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't help much, either; we should have had our own tanks in there- that could have been done very quickly, much faster than going through someone else's chain of command.
|
Even then, in close quarters urban fighting, tank drivers probably HATE being there. So many RPG soldiers pop out and blow up tanks, if the Somalians had gotten themselves organized, they could have destroyed a large column of armor. There really is no way to go in to a city like that without huge loss of life without just mowing the city down with depleted uranium shells. But that's not really what the U.N. stands for.
| NukeIt15 |
The objective was to capture a warlord because all of the aid being sent in was being confiscated by his goons and not going to the Somaili people. That could have been accomplished. There were more than enough US troops, armor assets, and aircraft in the region to do that. Clinton pulled out instead.
|
Oh yeah, that's right, I read the book last year and forgot about that retard despot warlord foo foo. If Clinton hadn't pulled out, though, we could have llost a ton of people. This task force proved that it really wasn't fully ready for urban combat against an entire city of RPGs and AK-47s. If this task force had kept going back in trying to get this elusive figure and recover their dead, nearly the whole task force could have wound up dead or dying.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
[Updated on: Sat, 21 February 2004 08:23] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67777] |
Sat, 21 February 2004 03:50 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
With more extensive wiretapping and other such surveillance, the U.S. could know that these attacks were coming and more intelligently deploy large forces around buildings they knew would be attacked as a last resort.
|
But, but I thought you were against the Patriot Act?
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67804] |
Sat, 21 February 2004 08:27 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I'm against putting people in a concentration camp without a lawyer or a fair trial on even the slightest bit of intelligence. Also, when these people are put in jail/camps, they're families aren't told where they are going. It's just not how our country works.
If one part of the Patriot acts had a part about more wire-tapping capabilities, then I support that, not the whole act.
By the way, the Patriot acts have a really stupid name [probably] designed to make Bush seem like an All-American.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67930] |
Sat, 21 February 2004 21:11 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
I mostly like the timing of said attacks:
January 26 1998
Declares "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
January 27 1998
Clinton attempts to create support in the U.N. for a military strike on Iraq and warns Saddam Hussein not to defy the will of the world.
---
June 30 1998
The release of Clinton's Paula Jones civil suit deposition
June 30 1998
F-16 fighter fires on Iraqi radar site.
---
August 20 1998
Monica Lewinsky testifies before Starr's Grand Jury
August 20 1998
Clinton launches cruise missiles at Sudan and at Afghanistan at a cost of $100 Million.
---
November 13 1998
Clinton settles the Paula Jones civil suit. Starr delivers boxes of evidence to House of Representatives.
November 14 1998
Clinton once again prepares to launch attacks on Iraq, then stands down.
---
December 17 1998
House of Representatives is set to vote on impeachment.
December 17 1998
Clinton launches major strikes on Iraq. It cost $400 Million in Cruise Missiles alone.
---
March 1999
Juanita Brodderick
Chinagate
Chinese espionage and nuclear missiles are the talk of the month.
March 1999
Clinton launches attacks on Kosovo
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67947] |
Sat, 21 February 2004 22:49 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
But i thought all missles we fired hit the mark within an inch.
|
Not if you put the wrong target in they don't.
Hehe, interesting how all the "action" Clinton took coincides with his less glorious moments, isn't it? Can we say..."shovel shit on the resume so no one notices the slip-ups"?
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #67970] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 01:43 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
The poster I pulled those from calls that section "Wagging the dog?"
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68054] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 13:31 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Crimson, about your "Wagging the Dog?" thing:
Your father seems to have the terrible burden in that he is unable to think for himself. The Republicans kept up the sham Starr investigation for years. What timing is he talking about? That during the spurious, nonsensical Starr investigation, which went on, sinfully, for years, Clinton attacked ists and the maniac in Iraq? There was not a single day during the criminally political Starr investigation that the Republicans couldn't say Clinton was trying to divert attention from their puppetshow. That was one of their goals.
Let's talk about the timing of George W. Bush. America gets involved in a bitter war in Viet Nam. The war heats up in 1972. George Bush blows off the last two years of his term of service in the National Guard.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68064] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 14:03 |
msgtpain
Messages: 663
Registered: March 2003
Location: Montana
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Let's talk about the timing of George W. Bush. America gets involved in a bitter war in Viet Nam. The war heats up in 1972. George Bush blows off the last two years of his term of service in the National Guard.
|
ROFL.., talk about someone that doesn't know their facts.. "The war heats up" in 1972? [Audience laughter sign lights up]
Did you just think that one up for your comeback? rofl..
The offical date of full troop withdrawl was November 30, 1972... So yea.. "The war heated up" around 1972..
Hey.. has anyone seen Elvis? I had a question for him..
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68093] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 14:53 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
The war heats up in 1972. George Bush blows off the last two years of his term of service in the National Guard.
|
Will you people make up your minds on how much time Bush was supposedly AWOL for? First it's six months, then a year, now it's two years? It seems the closer we come to the election, the more time he "missed." Odd, isn't it? Sometimes I just get to thinking those claims got pulled out of someone's ass to stir up the opposition.
msgtpain is right- the US pulled out during 1972. The only "heating up" that was going on was the heat coming off our aircraft engines as we departed the area.Or perhaps you mean that after the US pullout, the South Vietnamese started losing badly? Either way, in 1972 Bush was in no danger of being mobilized.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68119] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 15:41 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Let's talk about the timing of George W. Bush. America gets involved in a bitter war in Viet Nam. The war heats up in 1972. George Bush blows off the last two years of his term of service in the National Guard.
|
Haven't we been over George W. Bush's military record before, and how it means nothing in today's world? First of all, you made that crap about the war "heating up" in 1972 up. We were already pulling out at that time. Second of all, WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD IS? It has nothing to do with fighting terrorism around the world or strengthening an already-growing economy, so why is it an issue???
| SuperFlyingEngi |
That during the spurious, nonsensical Starr investigation, which went on, sinfully, for years, Clinton attacked ists and the maniac in Iraq?
|
Oh, so now Clinton was fighting terrorists in Iraq and Saddam Hussein is a maniac not to be trusted? But I thought Saddam was a trustworthy guy who didn't have any WMDs at all and terrorists didn't exist in the country! :rolleyes:
How odd, Bill Clinton makes a case for war with Iraq and gets praised by his Democratic colleagues. George W. Bush makes the exact same case, and he gets crucified by the same Democrats that once supported Bill Clinton.
Can you say, "double standard?"
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68124] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 16:05 |
Llama Man 451
Messages: 79
Registered: February 2004
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
^^^
hydra, you would have made a good case if you werent another one of the brainwashed fucks who run their mouths about shit they dont understand.
clinton DID fight a war on terror over the above mentioned attacks. he went to the source.
george bush howeer, "fights a war on terror" away from the problem which is afghanistan, he fought in iraq, dont pull the al queda card either, becuase once they saw things were gettin crazy in iraq you can safely say they goot themselves over there quick.
definately a slight difference there
"You all stare but you'll never see/ There's someting inside me" - Corey Taylor
Life is strange when you must lock your door in fear of your cat
Sometimes when I'm all alone I stare at my goldfish, and think about how much I hate fishticks, then I realize that I don't have a goldfish.
There is a fair chance that at this moment I am being hunted by a demonic monkey from Central America. Please don't tell him I've been here. Please. I don't know what he wants.
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68125] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 16:16 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
About Bush going AWOL/Desertion:
The chart above is based on information obtained from news reports and other sources as well as the book, "Fortunate Son" by J.H. Hatfield. According to Hatfield, G.W. Bush did community service at Professionals United for Leadership League (PULL) from around June 1972 until August 1972. Hatfield presents arguments that this was mandated service - a result of a drug offense that has since been wiped from the record.
About Vietnam:
The war did start heating up in '72. Early in '72, Reagan announced the biggest bombing campaign ever, among other things.
| hydra1945 |
How odd, Bill Clinton makes a case for war with Iraq and gets praised by his Democratic colleagues. George W. Bush makes the exact same case, and he gets crucified by the same Democrats that once supported Bill Clinton.
|
What Bill Clinton would have done and what Bush did are not the same thing. Clinton talked about putting special forces on the ground in Afghanistan, among other things, not steamrolling over an entirely different country. NOT THE EXACT SAME THING! Oh, and earlier I misspoke. I wasn't talking about Hussein and put that in there by accident.
| hydra1945 |
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD IS? It has nothing to do with fighting terrorism around the world or strengthening an already-growing economy, so why is it an issue???
|
I don't suppose it would happen to be a credibility issue, since Bush said he was in the national guard the whole time?
| NukeIt15 |
Will you people make up your minds on how much time Bush was supposedly AWOL for? First it's six months, then a year, now it's two years? It seems the closer we come to the election, the more time he "missed." Odd, isn't it? Sometimes I just get to thinking those claims got pulled out of someone's ass to stir up the opposition.
|
You want to know why the numbers kept going up? Because people kept discovering the truths. That's how it works. The more gaps that are found in more and more papers, the more the story comes out. Incredibly, as time went on, it became closer and closer to the election. Who would have known? Well, if you think all this AWOL stuff is just being made up, you're wrong. All these papers that keep coming out show that Bush has been out for long amounts of time. The Bush administration is fighting such a lost cause that now they're starting to pull dental records out to show that he got a dental check sometime.
| msgtpain |
The offical date of full troop withdrawl was November 30, 1972... So yea.. "The war heated up" around 1972..
|
The war heated up early '72 when Reagan announced all that huge bombing stuff. If I'm correct, November isn't in the beginning of the year. In fact, it's very far towards the END of the year.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
| OT: Political IQ Test [message #68140] |
Sun, 22 February 2004 16:48 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7427
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
| hydra1945 |
How odd, Bill Clinton makes a case for war with Iraq and gets praised by his Democratic colleagues. George W. Bush makes the exact same case, and he gets crucified by the same Democrats that once supported Bill Clinton.
|
What Bill Clinton would have done and what Bush did are not the same thing. Clinton talked about putting special forces on the ground in Afghanistan, among other things, not steamrolling over an entirely different country. NOT THE EXACT SAME THING! Oh, and earlier I misspoke. I wasn't talking about Hussein and put that in there by accident.
|
What other maniac in Iraq were you talking about?? If you are going to tell me that Clinton wanted to leave Hussein alone you're going to have to pull some proof because I think UN documents will probably SHOW that Clinton wanted to strike them. And I think you'll also find that we DID send some missiles towards Iraq during Clinton's 8 year stay.
If I'm not mistaken, we did do a little military action in Afghanistan too... wait, I remember now, we fucking liberated the country from Taliban hold! And we still have troops there to this day.
| Quote: |
| hydra1945 |
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH'S MILITARY RECORD IS? It has nothing to do with fighting terrorism around the world or strengthening an already-growing economy, so why is it an issue???
|
I don't suppose it would happen to be a credibility issue, since Bush said he was in the national guard the whole time?
|
Interesting that all these scandals Clinton had his hand in do nothing to damage his credibility. WHEE double standards EVERYWHERE! :rolleyes:
I'm also trying to figure out how Reagan was Commander in Chief before 1980. If you can't remember who was president in 1972, then how can I trust anything else you say?
| Llama Man 451 |
hydra, you would have made a good case if you werent another one of the brainwashed fucks who run their mouths about shit they dont understand.
|
Classic case of ad hominem... if you can't refute what the person says, try to discredit them with personal insults. Sorry, that sort of un-intellectual garbage won't fly here.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Apr 28 12:46:19 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01924 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
