page 2 says Clinton is...

9/23/2005 2:06:43 PM

All I hear from liberals is how Bush "lied" to everyone about going to Iraq. A lie is if you know 100% you are telling someone false information. Bush didn't "lie" because the intellegance of every organization in the world said the same thing Bush was saying. If he had known that Iraq did not have WMDs, and said the things he said, then he would have lied.

Clinton lied directly under oath, there is no question about it. Where was the out cry from the left about this? And they say Bush is the misleading president. B.S. The only thing he is guilty of is for trusting the CIA, British, and Russian intellegince services.

9/23/2005 2:07:18 PM

no one has ever made that argument.

gg

9/23/2005 2:08:35 PM

^ Clinton didn't lie under oath, he gave misleading testimony (there's a difference).

But most serious liberals don't accuse Bush of lying. The smarter ones point out that he's confounded our war on terror at every single turn, which is exactly why he shouldn't be President anymore (God bless the Democrats that couldn't turn THAT into a campaign issue).

9/23/2005 2:09:36 PM

Quote :

"growing up in a poor county in the south does not make you an authority on how black people raise their children. In fact, I would be inclined to believe that it would instill certain stereotypes in you (such as "black people think we owe them everything")."

Dude, go take a sociology class.

If you are honestly stupid enough to believe that the government system will not effect your life in the future then I feel sorry for you.

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 2:11 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2005 2:10:21 PM

^ I never said it wouldn't affect me. And I don't think there are many sociology classes that are going to teach me that black people raise their children to think that "we" owe them everything.

9/23/2005 2:16:59 PM

There's a big difference between saying you didn't get your cock sucked by an ugly ho and lying to invade another country.

9/23/2005 2:21:33 PM

i mean, they have a point when they say "no one died when clinton lied"

9/23/2005 2:35:16 PM

^ the sperm?

9/23/2005 2:39:14 PM

Quote :

"^ Just wait until you get out of school with a degree makin' some money. I am sure you are going to love to know that your increased tax money under democrats will be used mainly to support african american children, many of which are raised to think that you owe them everything. "

That's absurd. There was some progress made with welfare under Clinton. But some welfare will always exist. Its cheaper than prisons.

Besides, I'd rather my tax dollars go to supporting african american children then rebuilding Iraq. We could be making some serious improvements around here with all that money.

9/23/2005 2:40:51 PM

^^^ But come on, Bush didn't lie. He exagerated, stretched the truth, and killed thousands people. Isn't that bad enough without making shit up about him telling a lie?

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 2:43 PM. Reason : ^]

9/23/2005 2:43:41 PM

Even if Bush didn't lie or exagerate, he was still wrong. Good intentions or bad intentions, he is responsible for thousands of deaths.

Quote :

"Patman is an idiot"

I'm just as right as you are.

9/23/2005 2:52:32 PM

I'm so glad we live in Utopia now

where all criticism of the government is unnecessary
and should soon be punishable by death

9/23/2005 3:17:47 PM

Quote :

"he is responsible for thousands of deaths"

not quite 2000 american deaths. A couple of Iraqis in the short run....sure. A couple of Iraqis in the long run....no way, because Sadam would have continued to mass murder.

9/23/2005 4:41:11 PM

Hey, would you like a cup of speculation with your bowl of understatement.

9/23/2005 4:44:19 PM

only if you would like a cup of speculation with your bowl of assumptions.

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 6:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/23/2005 6:40:24 PM

Quote :

"How many african american children have you witnessed being raised?"

none. but thats only because black kids don't actually get raised.

btw, I would prefer that if my money were to go to anyone, that it would go to supporting someone who actually gives a damn. I'd be willing to bet that a greator percentage of Iraqis give a damn about being productive members of society than those who welfare money currently goes to. Thus, I'd rather my money go to Iraq, and not onto the feet of some ingrate.

9/23/2005 6:55:25 PM

Quote :

"not quite 2000 american deaths."

Exactly. 2000 Americans dead!

You can't justify Iraq by talking about liberating Iraqis after the position the republicans took when Clinton was President. Y'all were saying the same shit about bring our boys home. The republicans argument was that it wasn't America's war. Iraq isn't America's war. We didn't go to war in Iraq to liberate Iraq, we went because we led to believe they have weapons of mass destruction. They didn't and many American lives were wasted. We're just being led by stubborness now.

[Edited on September 23, 2005 at 8:23 PM. Reason : ?]

9/23/2005 8:22:49 PM

the only thing i have to contest is the part about stubborness. do you propose that we just up and leave? THAT would be a bigger travesty, by far.

9/23/2005 8:26:55 PM

No, I agree that we can't just leave, that would be just as wrong as going to start with. But we can admit our mistakes and work in earnest to get out. We need to have some humility about ourselves and return to diplomacy. By stubborness, I mean Bush is too stubborn to admit that we made a mistake and kiss and make up with our allies.

The single biggest threat to our security is the alienation of our allies. Bush has seriously damaged our country in the eyes of the world. I get the feeling that republicans love him for that because it makes them feel badass to think we don't have to answer to our peers. But history shows that nations who try to take on the world will lose.

I'm willing to accept that maybe Bush & Co. really believed Iraq had WMDs and was a threat to our allies in the region. But when you are so bold as to invade a country in this pre-emptive fashion, you had better be prepared to be wrong and be man enough to admit to it.

9/23/2005 10:00:07 PM

Quote :

"the position the republicans took when Clinton was President."

True, but that means the dems have switched positions as well.....

Bush has not damaged the country in other peoples eyes, the press has. When the press is behind any president it makes all the difference. In WWII, everyone thought it was a good cause to stop the nazi invasion. This was because the press told people it was. Today, the press is against the Iraqi war and the war on terror in general, which they tell the people of the world on a daily basis.

Quote :

"work in earnest to get out"

What do you think we are doing right now? The only way to speed up the process is to send more US forces over to flush and secure the Iraqi boarders, which I think should be done but liberals certianly do not. We are training Iraqis by the thousands, and it is expected that possibly in a year, US forces could come home competely.

[Edited on September 24, 2005 at 12:30 AM. Reason : ..]

9/24/2005 12:26:34 AM

Quote :

"Bush has not damaged the country in other peoples eyes, the press has. When the press is behind any president it makes all the difference. In WWII, everyone thought it was a good cause to stop the nazi invasion. This was because the press told people it was. Today, the press is against the Iraqi war and the war on terror in general, which they tell the people of the world on a daily basis."

you don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. media coverage has never played a huge role in public opinion.

Quote :

"The assertion that biased media coverage was the decisive factor in turning domestic US public opinion against the war in Vietnam has been closely analyzed and convincingly challenged by a large number of distinguished and disinterested researchers. Among the most respected studies were those conducted by Daniel Hallin and Clarence Wyatt, who, after analyzing the effect of so-called negative media images of the war on the American people, found virtually no evidence to support any causal relationship between editorial tone and bias in the media with loss of public support for the war.3 Additionally, in perhaps the most widely quoted study of the relationship between public opinion and news reporting from Vietnam—one regarded by many as the seminal work on the subject—Ohio State University professor John Mueller compared and analyzed the effects of the media on public opinion during the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. He “found that support for the wars among the general public followed a pattern for decline that was remarkably similar,” even though the media were neither as pervasive nor as critical during the Korean conflict as they were during the Vietnam War.4 He summed up his conclusions as follows: Many have seen Vietnam as a “television war” and argue that the vivid and largely uncensored day-by-day television coverage of the war and its brutalities made a profound impression on public attitudes. The poll data used in this study do not support such a conclusion. They clearly show that whatever impact television had, it was not enough to reduce support for the war below the levels attained by the Korean War, when television was in its infancy, until casualty levels had far surpassed those of the earlier war.5 "

http://carlisle-[link]http://www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/05summer/darley.htm[/link]

don't be such a fucking lackey. do your own goddamned research.

you talk about the media as if it is a single entity hell-bent on the destruction of (conservative) America. i think what makes the world hate our administration has more to do with our foreign policy than BBC and CNN.

[Edited on September 24, 2005 at 12:51 AM. Reason : word]

9/24/2005 12:50:22 AM

Quote :

"True, but that means the dems have switched positions as well....."

At best, it may indicate that both sides are wrong and the truth is somewhere in between. But at least Clinton had a compelling reason when he sent troops overseas. The situation was rapidly deteriorating in the former Yugoslavia and Solmalia. While Saddam was a brutal tyrant, he was no more so when we invaded Iraq than he was when we called him an ally and were selling him arms to fight Iran. You only go to war because you have to.

Quote :

"Bush has not damaged the country in other peoples eyes, the press has. When the press is behind any president it makes all the difference. In WWII, everyone thought it was a good cause to stop the nazi invasion. This was because the press told people it was. Today, the press is against the Iraqi war and the war on terror in general, which they tell the people of the world on a daily basis."

That's such BS. The news shows what people want to see.

[Edited on September 24, 2005 at 8:30 AM. Reason : ?]

9/24/2005 8:28:50 AM

Quote :

"media coverage has never played a huge role in public opinion."

Right. So when newsweek printed the bogus article, I guess that didnt make a difference how others saw the US?

When the Gitmo stories were released over and over and over and over, no one in the rest of the world would possibly believe that the US was a country who tortured people (even though we do not)

The real story should be how the terrorist kidnapped civilian contractors, cut their heads off and then paraded around the streets celebrating while shooting guns up in the air and chanting hatred towards the USA. But of course this does not fuel the US people to hate the terrorists, it causes us to hate the president. This is because the press turns it into a sob story, instead of a "we need to revenge our brothers death" story.

[Edited on September 24, 2005 at 9:22 AM. Reason : .]

9/24/2005 9:10:48 AM

US Federal Finances


Not relevant, but I wanted to post them somewhere.

[Edited on September 25, 2005 at 8:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/25/2005 8:27:56 AM

I didn't know our gov't owned the GDP, and could use it to pay the debt.

9/25/2005 8:37:25 AM

Neither did I... who is saying it does? My graph utilizes %GDP to provide the necessary relativism to the size of government.

For example, a government that constitutes 50% of a $1 trillion dollar economy is more pervasive than one that constitutes 5% of a $10 trillion dollar economy, although in dollar amounts they are the same size.

9/25/2005 10:04:20 AM

Quote :

"WWII, everyone thought it was a good cause to stop the nazi invasion. This was because the press told people it was."

hahahhahahhaa

this is the single dumbest thing i've ever heard in the soap box

ever

who posted that, i want to send you a certificate

9/25/2005 1:16:13 PM

Quote :

"You can't justify Iraq by talking about liberating Iraqis after the position the republicans took when Clinton was President. Y'all were saying the same shit about bring our boys home. The republicans argument was that it wasn't America's war. Iraq isn't America's war."

thank you for that logical fallacy. it is really enlightening.

9/25/2005 7:50:12 PM

^^"know what they're talking about"

ahahah oh man...thats a good one...oh keep telling yourself that sweetie

9/26/2005 9:18:24 AM

do what now?

9/26/2005 9:58:39 AM

^,^^

Quote :

"cookiepuss All American 3067 Posts user info edit post ^^ you're joking right? you can't seriously think people don't like Bush because he just makes up his own words, can you? seriously, though, stick to chit chat, pumpkin. leave this to people that know what they are talking about. "

9/26/2005 10:00:37 AM