Boffa Jones Veteran Posted June 29, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 29, 2005 I find that the article makes some good points, but it also uses the same points a bit wierd. I am sorry but when Clinton was around I was young and didn't follow politics. I agree with what Clinton did back then in bosnia. And I agreed with what bush did as well in liberating or at least trying to liberate Iraq. As the war continued my view slowly changed. What is happening in Iraq shouldn't be happening, the war needs to be rethought and done better. Now I don't let people 'spoonfeed' me my views. If American I would have voted Bush because I think Kerry is a tool. I hate micheal moore I don't even know who Ted Kenndy is and Al Frankin makes me sick. BTW I think John Stewart is worthless as well. My views are my own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted June 29, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 29, 2005 just for the record, when i say spoonfed views, i mean the masses, not the people on the forums here. everyone here i like to think is smart enough to have their own opinions and so what i mean is the masses. as for michael moore, i think he is a smart person, just as smart as i think karl rove is. being smart doesnt have to mean you agree with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 The smartest ones are not involved in politics. I would like to know of the golden boys of the conservatives? Rush? Hannity? O'Reilly? Newt? 586139876[/snapback] *Chuckles* I think your average conservative would shrink in fear if they heard you saying that. A legitimate "golden boy" for the conservatives would be Ronald Reagan, I think. News/talk show commentators? Hardly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azadre Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 *Chuckles* I think your average conservative would shrink in fear if they heard you saying that. A legitimate "golden boy" for the conservatives would be Ronald Reagan, I think. News/talk show commentators? Hardly. 586140507[/snapback] He's dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreAming in DigITal Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 A bit off topic but...This is the first first thread concerning American politics where people aren't throwing out tons of trash comments...for the most part people are actually discussing rather than arguing :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 He's dead. 586140690[/snapback] So is Washington, but it doesn't mean someone can't tout his accomplishments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaulz Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 He's dead. 586140690[/snapback] That statement leaves a bit to be desired... :rolleyes: A bit off topic but...This is the first first thread concerning American politics where people aren't throwing out tons of trash comments...for the most part people are actually discussing rather than arguing :) 586140751[/snapback] Wierd, isn't it? Not sure how to handle this.... :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azadre Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 That statement leaves a bit to be desired... :rolleyes: 586141119[/snapback] The fact all the golden boys of the liberals are ALIVE and the only one for the conservatives is dead. Of course, Ron Reagan could be considered a golden boy for the liberals. And Nancy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaulz Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Dude, if that's the best you've got.... I know it's standard liberal practice to jump on insignificant, ridiculous details and hammer them to death while side-stepping the issue at hand, but that's really pushing it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'm merely curious as to how being dead can somehow make a person accomplishments irrelevant to use as an example. So much for legacy, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 The fact all the golden boys of the liberals are ALIVE and the only one for the conservatives is dead. Of course, Ron Reagan could be considered a golden boy for the liberals. And Nancy too. 586141313[/snapback] Judges..... clap!clap!clap!clap! That is priceless :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Judges..... clap!clap!clap!clap!That is priceless :rofl: 586141935[/snapback] Hopefully, because I wouldn't buy it. :whistle: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digipoi Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Hopefully, because I wouldn't buy it. :whistle: 586141945[/snapback] Not this one. It was the best joke Ive heard all day and for free even. Ill tell you, Azadre really extends himself sometimes. I miss Sputnik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azadre Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 I'm merely curious as to how being dead can somehow make a person accomplishments irrelevant to use as an example. So much for legacy, I guess... 586141881[/snapback] There was the whole Iran-Contra scandel that occured in his administration that really stains his legacy. But it is sad because it was conservative policies (and possible Clinton's) that prevented the research for the gip. Seriously though, is there any other conservative golden boy? Rove? Delay? Frist? Scarburrough? Bucchanen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaulz Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Azadre... you're being pathetic... who freaking CARES who the "golden boy" for conservatives is? What's the matter, you were losing the debate so now you have to pull the same old liberal "dodge the issue" cr@p? Let it go man, it's seriously not that big of a deal. Pick whatever names you want, we don't care. Secondly, Reagan's legacy WAY outweighs the Iran-Contra "scandel". Nothing can "stain" the fall of communism in Russia. Nice try, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyClaw Veteran Posted June 30, 2005 Veteran Share Posted June 30, 2005 whats the deal with bashing the liberals when a valid point is brought up? i dont get it, repeating false stereotypes doesnst make your argument any stronger nor does it make them true. so whats up with this? dodging the issues? the reps are very guilty of it too, ask president bush why we are in iraq, and where the WMDs are and why was the intellegence faulty, he will say 9/11 and terrorism. i think that quallifies "dodging the issue" since neither of those have anything to do with the war. he is quoted on national television doing that and there is an actual post of him saying that in this very RWI section. dont be a hypocrite by throw out the stereotypical liberal bashing comments like that when the accusing party is guilty of it. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Septimius Posted June 30, 2005 Share Posted June 30, 2005 Lol, what amuses me is that fact that, until the end of time, the one and only issue that anyone is going to remember in relation to anything is this alleged Bush thing. Seriously folks, do you hear anyone talking about Clinton? Watergate? There's a certaint point at which killing the same issue over and over is enough. I'd be interested in seeing some other reasons the you believe conservatives are hypocrites (from previously) or dodge the issue, as this is the same canned response I get no matter how many times I ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smaulz Posted July 1, 2005 Share Posted July 1, 2005 whats the deal with bashing the liberals when a valid point is brought up?? i dont get it, repeating false stereotypes doesnst make your argument any stronger nor does it make them true.? so whats up with this? WHAT valid point?!? Discussing who would make a good "Golden Boy" for the conservative population? What in the HELL does that have to do with the topic at hand? Do you not understand the meaning of the word "valid"??? And please be so kind as to point out which stereotype is false. Thanks. dodging the issues?? the reps are very guilty of it too, ask president bush why we are in iraq, and where the WMDs are and why was the intellegence faulty, he will say 9/11 and terrorism.? i think that quallifies "dodging the issue" since neither of those have anything to do with the war.? he is quoted on national television doing that and there is an actual post of him saying that in this very RWI section.? dont be a hypocrite by throw out the stereotypical liberal bashing comments like that when the accusing party is guilty of;)t.? ;) 586144520[/snapback] Bush has explained this a thousand times, you're not listening. Now, it's fine if you don't LIKE his explanation, but that's on you, not him. Secondly, there's never been any question of the existence of WMDs; we said so, the Brits said so, the French said so, every allied country said so. There was video evidence of the aftermath of said WMDs. There were Sadam's own people who said they existed. It's pretty ridiculous that when the hammer fell and they came up missing, (used up, moved, hidden, whatever) everybody's got the balls to say, "oh, well, they were never there, Bush must have lied." This is yet another example of a weak mind spouting the textbook liberal talking-points. So explain to me exactly where you stand calling ME a hypocrite? Quote one of my posts that is hypocritical, and I'll gladly back it up. Also, explain what I'm (the "accusing party") guilty of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Secondly, there's never been any question of the existence of WMDs; we said so, the Brits said so, the French said so, every allied country said so. There was video evidence of the aftermath of said WMDs. There were Sadam's own people who said they existed. It's pretty ridiculous that when the hammer fell and they came up missing, (used up, moved, hidden, whatever) everybody's got the balls to say, "oh, well, they were never there, Bush must have lied." This is yet another example of a weak mind spouting the textbook liberal talking-points. 586145781[/snapback] Uhm, Hans Blix 'had the balls' to say it to the UN before the US invaded Iraq. I think people would have noticed if Sadam had used the WMDs during the war, if they were indeed the gallons of Sarin Nerve gas Powell claimed they had. I doubt any of the soldiers that 'confessed' to there being WMDs even knew what the hell they were talking about. I wouldn't believe it for a second unless it was a high ranking official, and that there was something for him to gain by telling the truth. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfay Posted July 2, 2005 Share Posted July 2, 2005 Blix and his team couldn't find any, doesn't mean they didn't exhist. He even said that there was some large quantities that were unaccounted for. You realize that this stuff just doesn't go away, without some sort of human intervention. Besides even when they were allowed "unparraleled" access they still had to give the Iraqi Intelligence service a days notice and a location before they went there for "national security reasons". Sounded fishy to me then. If there were no WMD's then the world was fooled and france, germany, russia, and the brits right along with the US are to blame for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAcOdIn Veteran Posted July 2, 2005 Veteran Share Posted July 2, 2005 Blix was never meant to have to look for weapons anyways, that was never thier job, they were supposed to be given proof by Saddam that they were all destroyed or done infront of them, and that never happened. Saddam was never in compliance, his unparralled acces as aforementioned was a joke. Mr. Blix had an agenda in the scheme just as everyone else. If he was certain that there were no WoMD then his job was done why was he saying he needed in? Of course on the flip side he always said he had no proof that the aformentioned large quantities were destroyed either which means that him saying there are no WoMD was a lie by him. Either way Blix was lying to people. As to whether there were really WoMD doesn't matter because that wasn't the true source of anything, what was lacking was the clear cut evidence that they were destroyed, and in the end no-one was fooled because Saddam never gave anyone evidence that they were destroyed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts