Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005. - Page 222

Shape Shifter · 07-11-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
2. EXACTLY - Like if we found WMDs and no killing fields somehow Saddam Hussein would have been a more evil dictator. What I don't get is that Liberals take this position that invading was immoral. OK maybe you can argue that invading Iraq may not have been in our strategic interest. But kicking Saddam out of power was not the moral thing to do. Please. Tell that to the Kurd and Shiite families that lost family members.

I don't recall anyone here (other than the Thottam socks) calling the war immoral. We all believe the world is better off without SH. I think the war was unwise from many perspectives, starting with the "allocation of scarce resources" one. We know of several other killing fields around the globe. Do we not give a shit about them?

Spanky · 07-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I don't think it was immoral.

But your boy fuckin lied. He lied, and you people said Clinton was a criminal for lying. So I'm calling your sons of bitches the scumbags they are. Don't change the fucking subject by saying your boy's lies were justified. Thats not the fucking debate and you know it.

Your people lied. Just like their predecessor whom you hated so much. Now you've finally been caught with your pants down, and you sons of bitches are hedging and parsing the definition of "is." Only this time the word is "knowingly."

You have no moral high road. Your people are as dirty and shitty as those who came before and those who'll follow. All I want is for you to get off your fucking moral highhorses and admit you're backing a liar.

You just aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Are you? We don't care that Clinton lied. Presidents lie all the time. They have to lie sometimes when it comes to National Security. Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. He didn't just lie - HE COMMITTED PERJURY. How did you pass the bar if you don't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath.

Shape Shifter · 07-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You mean, when he said that Saddam had WMD's?

Oh, wait, no, that was Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Allbright, Chirac, Schroeder, . . . .

Sorry.

None of them invaded Iraq using WMD as a justification.

Penske_Account · 07-11-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You mean, when he said that Saddam had WMD's?

Oh, wait, no, that was Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Allbright, Chirac, Schroeder, . . . .

Sorry.

2. And all of the evidence is not in yet. The WMDs that were transported to Syria may still be found.

bilmore · 07-11-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
None of them invaded Iraq using WMD as a justification.

Worldwide Islamofacism became more of a priority later. There were these buildings, see, . . .

(It's a cool debating tactic ya'all use. "No, no, prove there's AIR!!" whenever you feel uneasy . . .)

Penske_Account · 07-11-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You just aren't the sharpest knife in the drawer. Are you? We don't care that Clinton lied. Presidents lie all the time. They have to lie sometimes when it comes to National Security. Clinton LIED UNDER OATH. He didn't just lie - HE COMMITTED PERJURY. How did you pass the bar if you don't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath.

2. The Democrats indifference to the rule of law is shameful.

SlaveNoMore · 07-11-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

bilmore
You mean, when he said that Saddam had WMD's?

Oh, wait, no, that was Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Allbright, Chirac, Schroeder, . . . .

Sorry.

They don't count, remember.

And Wilson - like Tawana - told the truth.

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-11-2005, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You mean, when he said that Saddam had WMD's?

Oh, wait, no, that was Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, Allbright, Chirac, Schroeder, . . . .

Sorry.

Did I say any of those people lied? No, I didn't. I said Bush lied.

Hank Chinaski · 07-11-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
None of them invaded Iraq using WMD as a justification.

right. They all believed he had them, but didn't do anything about it. Hell, clinton didn't even shoot missiles at mountains inIraq.

That's why the senate will soon be 60-40, and you won't have a Democratic President until Coltrane is on his second marriage.

Spanky · 07-11-2005, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
None of them invaded Iraq using WMD as a justification.

Does anyone really believe that Bush thought there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction? Saddam had used them before, he had been trying to obtain them and he wouldn't let the insectors go where they wanted to go. Our intelligence did not know what was hidden in every structure in a country the size of California.

Calling him a liar is just ridiculous. I don't think he lied, and even if he did what is the big deal?

SlaveNoMore · 07-11-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

y Shape Shifter
We all believe the world is better off without SH.

Well, he wasn't going away of his volition anytime soon.

bilmore · 07-11-2005, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Did I say any of those people lied? No, I didn't. I said Bush lied.

Just curious - way back when, when people said the earth was flat, and everyone believed it, were they lying?

SlaveNoMore · 07-11-2005, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Shape Shifter
...Wilson (who apparently wasn't enough of a hack to intentionally include false statements about yellowcake in the SOTU Address)....

No, Wilson lied about seeing reports that he never did, then he fully misrepresented the contents of those reports when he finally did see them.

The bipartisan Senate commission investigating these matters made this issue crystal clear.

Then again, we went over this ad naseum as the time. The mere passing of time doesn't change any of Wilson's lies.

SlaveNoMore · 07-11-2005, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Hank Chinaski
That's why the senate will soon be 60-40, and you won't have a Democratic President until Coltrane is on his second marriage.

But by then, the Republicans will be much more like the party of his Father. And his Grandfather.

Not Bob · 07-11-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
I kind of like Wilson (especially his 14 points). Does anyone know why my Great Grandfather thought that Wilson was so anti-black. He said that Wilson was the "Negroes and the Coloreds worst enemy" and that it was like having Jefferson Davis as Presdient. In addition, I just find it hard to believe that the African American vote was that strong in rural Washington state.

That's because your great grandfather was old enough to think of the Democratic Party as the party of Rum, Romanism, and the Rebellion.

Blacks voted (in those places were they were allowed to vote) for the GOP ("thanks for freeing us, Mr. Lincoln!") by a vast majority until the Depression, when they slowly began voting for Democrats. Some historians say that the tipping point for the black middle class wasn't even until 1960, when JFK called Corretta Scott King when MLK Jr. was in jail. MLK Sr. said that, until that phone call, he never would have voted for a Catholic Democrat to be president.

Wilson was a racist, as were most white Americans of the time, but he went out of his way to publicize it. He expressed outrage that TR invited black leaders to the White House, and praised the pro-Klan movie "Birth of a Nation" as a great work of history.