Politics As Usual - Page 239

Hank Chinaski · 07-02-2004, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Read the transcript, brainiac. That's not what she said.
[list]On September the 11th, 2001, we were attacked in an unprovoked fashion. Everybody thought the world was calm.* And then there have been bombings since then -- not because of my response to Iraq. There were bombings in Madrid. There were bombings in Istanbul. There were bombings in Bali. There were killings in Pakistan.

I can't read Ty's blogs and the truth. you read Ty's quote. It didn't sound like she blamed those bombings on Iraq?

to put it in terms you might understand, Dems can't be trusted with power during a period like the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Everyone might think it was okay you were in charge during the Hobbit, but you all were ignoring gathering dark forces as it turned out. See?

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-02-2004, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you all were ignoring gathering dark forces as it turned out

This is what medical professionals call "projection." Back in the day, GOPsters got all hot and bothered that President Clinton would lob cruise missiles at Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan when they were trying to keep the focus on his personal sex life.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-02-2004, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
YOu all were ignoring gathering dark forces as it turned out.

Yes, I remember how we all laughed at the cries of warning from those on the right about those same gathering dark forces.

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-02-2004, 08:13 PM

Tests show that warheads found in Iraq are negative for chemical agents.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_040702184424

Hank Chinaski · 07-02-2004, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Tests show that warheads found in Iraq are negative for chemical agents.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...s_040702184424

We were all wondering why Clinton was blowing up bosnia. Like Ty said "they weren't an immediate threat to America." I think that what ty said that about.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-02-2004, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We were all wondering why Clinton was blowing up bosnia.

Cuz they were Muslims?

Sexual Harassment Panda · 07-02-2004, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
We were all wondering why Clinton was blowing up bosnia. Like Ty said "they weren't an immediate threat to America." I think that what ty said that about.

Hank, have you started your weekend early? Because your last few posts have been, well...frankly, borderline incomprehensible.

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-02-2004, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Hank, have you started your weekend early? Because your last few posts have been, well...frankly, borderline incomprehensible.

It's after 7:00 p.m. in Detroit -- Hank should be three sheets to the wind by now.

Sidd Finch · 07-02-2004, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by the Spartan
Clinton was never brave, he was a craven vote whore.

Riiiiiiiight. Taking a stand for gay rights in 1993 was a move designed to garner votes.

Penske, maybe you can break out one of the less psycho-socks for awhile.

Sidd Finch · 07-02-2004, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Amazing that Bush was able to completely turn military readiness around so quickly in time to invade Afghanistan.

More amazing still, that invasion took place before a nickel from Bush's military budget had been spent.

He probably got all those precision munitions, satellite communications,* and highly-trained CIA and Special Forces operatives through prayer.

*cf US Special Forces in Afghanistan calling in precision strikes from the Navy and Air Force via laptops and laser pointers with soldiers in the Reagan military in Grenada needing to place a commercial phone-card call to communicate with their own command.

Hank Chinaski · 07-02-2004, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Riiiiiiiight. Taking a stand for gay rights in 1993 was a move designed to garner votes.

Penske, maybe you can break out one of the less psycho-socks for awhile.

Of course it was to garner votes. We have the anti-gay guys you have the gay guys.

And it was a circle fuck. Don't ask- don't tell, a brave move. sheesh...

Meanwhile, same time that was going on, my next door neighbors were a lesbo couple who had a lunatic that would go on their porch and yell. there was nothingthey could do- NO LAW state or Federal. did Billy try and expand the fair housing act? Bring it up at all? that would have been brave.
And dimwit, we didn't invade Afghanistan we help some people blow crap up, then slowly got a small number of troops in. Billy did something to improve special forces? Billy personally championed the armed drones?

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-02-2004, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Of course it was to garner votes. We have the anti-gay guys you have the gay guys.

And it was a circle fuck. Don't ask- don't tell, a brave move. sheesh...

Meanwhile, same time that was going on, my next door neighbors were a lesbo couple who had a lunatic that would go on their porch and yell. there was nothingthey could do- NO LAW state or Federal. did Billy try and expand the fair housing act? Bring it up at all? that would have been brave.
And dimwit, we didn't invade Afghanistan we help some people blow crap up, then slowly got a small number of troops in. Billy did something to improve special forces? Billy personally championed the armed drones?

When you drink and drive, we all lose. When you drink and argue, you lose and we win.

T.S.

1,047,294 - 3

the Spartan · 07-02-2004, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Riiiiiiiight. Taking a stand for gay rights in 1993 was a move designed to garner votes.

Penske, maybe you can break out one of the less psych-socks for awhile.

It was a politically calculated move. Not unlike W's marriage amendment.

Clinton was pandering to the far left on that issue as he moved away (to the middle) from their shared ideological lunacy on the really important issues. The gay rights issue/gays in the military is an issue, by and large, that the masses don't really care about. They might have an opinion or a preferance or a little stronger, but the majority of people are not going to vote on the issue. Three groups might. The extreme queer-hating "christian" right, gays and those who are on the far left on social issues (the latter two may overlap in places). Clinton was solidifying his support with the latter two, which latter two might otherwise be offended by some of the more centrist turns his policies were taking/going to take in order to effectively use his office as referenced above. The other political benefit is that the issue turned out the far right christian nuts, which makes the whole of the right and by association the Republican Party, look like Christian nuts, which is not pretty.

End of the day, while as a position, forced to make a choice, Clinton may choose to be pro-gay rights and may give lip service (no pun intended) to the support of gays in the military, but I highly doubt he feels strongly on that or any issue or would, if any office depended upon it, take a principled stand, dig his heels in and let the chips fall where they would. The only thing Clinton feels strongly about and would "bravely" take a stand on is Clinton and the self-promotion of the same. I don't necessarily think that this is an offensive trait in and of itself and frankly its one that I hold near and dear in my own narcississified principles of being, but it is offensive to the idea that he did anything out of a sense of bravery in the defense of a higher set of principles.

Despite what some here and on IM (hi TM!) may think I don't hate Bill Clinton (and would gladly accept an invitation to go out drinking in the wingman position with him-nttawwt) and prior to 911 I would have given him a C- as President, which I note is a passing grade and which, if hypopthetically adjusted to remove the perjury thing, would have been a B. After 911 and the part his negligence played in allowing bin laden's plot to hatch I have to downgrade him to a D/C respectively. Still passing though, which is more than LBJ can say.

Happy 4th!

Yankee Doodle Greedy · 07-02-2004, 09:33 PM

Hi dee ho, my fellow patriots from the red states of W's America and to the assorted riff raff leftist rabble rousing Maoists who infect this fair public forum! After a long absence I have found you and have returned to bring some Common Sense to this place.

So today, 3.5 hours in advance, to my friends and enemies alike I say, HAPPY 3RD OF JULY!

And no that's not a typo.

I think we should declare July 3rd a new national holiday of Dependence. Depends Day, as this is a fitting metaphor for the diaper wetters who will celebrate it. Hereafter, July 3rd of each year can be a day where all of those leaches who believe government should provide healthcare, retirement, prescription drugs, and all the other nanny-state teat-suckling free-rider handout social programs can celebrate DEPENDENCE. while independent free-thinking self-sufficient patriots who are convinced that the government is into all kinds of stuff that they shouldn't be, can celebrate the traditional Independence Day on the 4th of July.

Who's with me?

Tyrone Slothrop · 07-02-2004, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yankee Doodle Greedy
Who's with me?

I am! Hooray! Let's get rid of pork-addled Congress that gave us the prescription drug benefit, a giveaway to senior citizens and pharmaceutical concerns alike! Let's get rid of the Republican Administration that has increased spending well over the last one, and sees its foreign policy as a wonderful excuse to throw money at fat-cat corporations like Halliburton and Brown & Root, and no-good foreigners like Ahmed Chalabi and David Frum! God bless America!