You would have a hard time even proving he harmed Lewinsky, she has her own TV show now, if not for all of that, nobody would even know her name.
Probably because the wont use them in the wrong way?
They said it before, they will not tolerate a preemptive attack against them...
I've accused some of the anti-war movement of wishing we would lose this war...who actually wanted to see our people die. I've done this even though I'm sure there are good people with reasonable objections. Unfortunately there are others who continually make me wonder what's the rule and what's the exception.
Where have the moderates gone? This is by far the worst sort of rabid, maniacal Bush-bashing I have ever seen on this board (though I haven't visited in months). For example:
That comment rendered me aghast, and I needn't explain why it is ludicrous and downright obscene.
Looks like anti-Semitism still prevails.
*Anger vented.*
That comment rendered me aghast, and I needn't explain why it is ludicrous and downright obscene.
Looks like anti-Semitism still prevails.
*Anger vented.*
You don't think the head of our country the President of the United States PERJURING himself in front of a Judge, court and the entire legal system didn't harm judicial integrity in this country? I'm sorry, but to compare Bush inability to speak in public with Clinton's Perjury is assinine. They aren't even in the same ballpark.
Is he a perjurer? It depends on what the meaning of "is", is. I haven't seen him get convicted of perjury, so unless he does he's not a perjurer. How has judicial integrity been harmed. Cases are tried the same way now that they've always been. That's just rhetoric. Please name one single way that the judicial system is harmed because of what happened on the stand with Clinton. In reality, the system is totally unchanged.
I didn't say my complaint was with Bush being a poor public speaker. I said "I think that (his) lack of intelligence causes (him) to be a poor diplomat and creates enemies." That has a real impact on my life.
phillyTIM
Golden Member
- Jan 12, 2001
- 1,942
- 10
- 81
At some point, the Bush regime is going to have to take some of their own hypocritical medicine...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../war_unconventional_weapons&cid=540&ncid=1480
U.S. Allies Also Have Chemical Weapons
By JIM KRANE, AP Technology Writer
The Bush administration cited Iraq (news - web sites)'s alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction in its decision to invade. President Bush (news - web sites) now says Syria, too, owns an arsenal of chemical weapons.
But the list of countries with likely chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs is not confined to nations Washington may consider hostile. It also includes such U.S. allies as Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India and Taiwan.
"The allegation is, we use weapons of mass destruction as an excuse when we have it out for other countries," said Jon B. Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We tend to look the other way when it suits our interest. That decision has come back to haunt us."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../war_unconventional_weapons&cid=540&ncid=1480
U.S. Allies Also Have Chemical Weapons
By JIM KRANE, AP Technology Writer
The Bush administration cited Iraq (news - web sites)'s alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction in its decision to invade. President Bush (news - web sites) now says Syria, too, owns an arsenal of chemical weapons.
But the list of countries with likely chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs is not confined to nations Washington may consider hostile. It also includes such U.S. allies as Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India and Taiwan.
"The allegation is, we use weapons of mass destruction as an excuse when we have it out for other countries," said Jon B. Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "We tend to look the other way when it suits our interest. That decision has come back to haunt us."
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,389
- 29
- 91
I think that (your) lack of intelligence causes (you) to make a fool of yourself in public:
Lets say I steal something from...oh say, Kmart. Lets say I don't get caught, and thus I don't get convicted of the crime of stealing. Does that mean that I'm not a thief?
BTW, Clinton's law license was suspended for 5 years in Arkansas, and he was disbarred from practising law before the United States Supreme Court. Clinton was not tried for perjury because he entered into an agreement with Robert Ray to drop the whole *ahem* afair in lieu of not contesting the Arkansas suspension and fine.
I'm able to debate with you without personal attacks. I'm not enacting a false moralilty that I don't practice. I wouldn't debate someone in real life like that either. Seeing as how it's become standard that someone throws in a curse word or two, i've ignored statements like "it's moronic to believe that" in order to continue a debate. However something as blatant as your first line is the cut off point. Edit that out and I'll edit this and respond to the content of your post.
You're probably an anti-war troll, which means that your Anti-American. After all, Anti-war=Anti-American. I'm just trying to say, why stop at Iraq? There is no good reason why America can't dominate the Middle East with it's military power. There are enough countries there with WMD and anti-American policies that we can pre-emptively strike becuase of national security. Not to mention, France has WMD, and they seem to oppose American foreign policy. Besides, France fell to Germany in a few weeks. Imagine how fast we can take France with our "Shock and Awe" attack? Ditto with Germany and the Russia.
Originally posted by: Grakatt
fwtong: You are probably sarcastic, but if not; Because missiles take time and money to build
Damn, something always gets in the way.
You are correct. The US could take over the Middle East. It won't because that is not the type of country that it is.
Colin Powell put it very well.
"The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.
There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.
I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.
So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.
We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we?ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works. "
"
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
If a man is tempted by desires of drugs and booze and wealth, and acts on those desires in an immoral way, what other temptations might he indulge in?
Look, I'm not interested in a lesser-of-two-evils debate about Bush vs. Clinton. Neither is a great prize in my book. It's off-topic for this thread anyway, and it's irrelevant now - Clinton is out, Bush is in, for better or worse, that's the way it is. I was just responding to a troll with a counter-troll. Neither man is perfect, putting them in the same boat as five billion other human beings.
For me personally, Clinton's flaws weren't nearly as significant as Bush's. For me, powerful men seeking sex is the oldest and least interesting story in the book. On the other hand, for me, Bush is reprehensible, absolutely not suited for the most powerful job in the world. I've never liked him, never trusted him, never understood what people see in him - and I never will. In the 2000 elections, he was my absolute last choice behind McCain, Gore, and Nader (in that order). But that's just my opinion.
We all have our own preferences and priorities in picking our leaders. Almost exactly half the people in this country liked Bush better than Gore. I can't understand why, but to each his own.
When I see comments like "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we?ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works. "", I think of Ghandi's reply to what he thought of Western Civilization.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I hope you realize how much you undermine your own credibility when you continue to chant the Bush mantra:
- Anti-war == anti-U.S.
- Anti-war == pro-terrorist
- Not supporting me == evil
Last time I checked this was a relatively open forum . . . in which I could perpetuate my personal beliefs. I don't dislike Bush . . . I don't know the man enough to dislike him. Now his policies sux big donkey gonads. Fiscal policy, social policy, and foreign policy are a morass that may take decades to correct . . . assuming we elect someone more worthy.
I disliked Clinton's policies as well but at least Clinton's political foibles typically occurred within a context of a sustainable worldview . . . except for maybe the pharmaceutical plant in the Sudan. Clinton was quite FOS but everybody knew it. Heads of state quickly learned they were dealing with the devil but they just couldn't help themselves b/c Clinton was the Dark Lord and they were 2nd rate demons of dishonesty. Yet he still came within an Arafat headdress to securing a legitimate peace plan for the Middle East.
Any President can bomb foreign capitals/munition factories/nuclear plants and invade sovereigns with 200K US troops . . . a valuable President has the ability to avoid such actions when there are other alternatives to be explored. Bush isn't a leader . . . he's middle management with responsibilities beyond his capabilities.
Clinton inherited a country on the rise after recession and managed to NOT mess it up. Bush inherited a country on the decline and has managed to distract. Everybody knows Syria has WMD . . . but who did they invade (other than Lebanon but who hasn't invaded Lebanon in the past two decades) and who are they threatening (other than Israel but we all know Israel will break them down if necessary)?! This administration's actions cannot be justified as being best for Iraqis OR best for Americans in the short or long term. A small cadre in DC (and simpleminded folk around the country) think they are playing Risk without risk. The problem is the man responsible for the decisions cannot read the directions, understand them if they are read to him, or have any concept of what happens when you lose.
at least slick willy didn't sell weapons to Iran or Iraq. well not that we know of
and he didn't give Iran money, well not that we know of
<BLOCKQUOTE>
HappyGamer2, Bowfinger, and etc. :
If a man is tempted by desires of lust and acts on those desires in an immoral way, what other temptations might he indulge in? A man with great power but no morals is very dangerous - much more so than a "fool" with morals.
CkG
</BLOCKQUOTE>
at least CkG admits slick willy was no fool
and he didn't give Iran money, well not that we know of
<BLOCKQUOTE>
HappyGamer2, Bowfinger, and etc. :
If a man is tempted by desires of lust and acts on those desires in an immoral way, what other temptations might he indulge in? A man with great power but no morals is very dangerous - much more so than a "fool" with morals.
CkG
</BLOCKQUOTE>
at least CkG admits slick willy was no fool
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter