The W
Views: 136451831
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
18.9.11 1512
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Inside the mind of a Liberal... Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (56 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 3457/4700
EXP: 24777679
For next: 272042

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2695 days
Last activity: 1150 days
#1 Posted on 12.7.04 1359.26
Reposted on: 12.7.11 1401.03
This was just too good to pass up...

    Originally posted by Author Unknown, but posted to WBAL.com


    Clinton v. Bush

    Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
    Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

    Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good...
    Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...

    Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
    Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

    Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists -
    good...
    Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...

    Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
    Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...

    Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
    Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...

    Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
    Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...

    No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
    No WMD found Iraq - bad...

    Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
    Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...

    Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
    World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...

    Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
    Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...

    Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
    Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...

    Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
    Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...

    Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
    Saddam turned over for trial - bad...

Promote this thread!
spf
Scrapple
Level: 138

Posts: 2790/5410
EXP: 31085580
For next: 577480

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1052 days
Last activity: 471 days
AIM:  
#2 Posted on 12.7.04 1522.04
Reposted on: 12.7.11 1522.42
I must not be much of a liberal, because there's not a single one of those things that I would call "Good" that are listed under Clinton.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 96

Posts: 377/2334
EXP: 8783016
For next: 205803

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1054 days
Last activity: 1054 days
#3 Posted on 12.7.04 1530.22
Reposted on: 12.7.11 1530.32
    Originally posted by spf2119
    I must not be much of a liberal, because there's not a single one of those things that I would call "Good" that are listed under Clinton.


As my conservative neighbor says - Bill Clinton was the best Republican President the country has seen in the last 30 years.

Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 49

Posts: 167/517
EXP: 861328
For next: 22561

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 588 days
Last activity: 161 days
#4 Posted on 12.7.04 1534.55
Reposted on: 12.7.11 1535.21
    Originally posted by spf2119
    I must not be much of a liberal, because there's not a single one of those things that I would call "Good" that are listed under Clinton.


I think "good" is a bad word to use in order to get across the point the author is trying to make.

I would say "not criticized by Democrats" & "criticized by Democrats", would make the point more succinctly...
Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 154

Posts: 3172/7061
EXP: 46346828
For next: 15146

Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 72 days
Last activity: 7 days
#5 Posted on 12.7.04 1535.06
Reposted on: 12.7.11 1535.39
This is like a defense lawyer arguing that though his client committed a murder, just because O.J. got off, this killer should too.

The problem with you Americans is that you keep electing crappy presidents on both sides of the aisle. Why can't you get great public servants like....Paul...Martin.... *sob*
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 59

Posts: 398/793
EXP: 1631382
For next: 41756

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 4610 days
Last activity: 4609 days
#6 Posted on 12.7.04 2321.08
Reposted on: 12.7.11 2321.38
If the difference between situations in Yugoslavia and Iraq aren't obvious to you, what else are you missing? I'm not saying Clinton didn't mess-up from time to time, but this is just plain prejudiced "Liberal" bashing:

Clinton (or his administation) did not start, invent, or manufacture the war in Yugoslavia. Sending peacekeeping forces with the full support of the UN is not the same as invading and concquering and concquering a country while spitting in the face of international law, like Bush did.

Bush's war in Iraq was whipped up from lies and fraudulent evidence, and W's over-developed sense of vengeance.

"Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
terrorists - good..."

Uh, so when does "Christian" mean "good" and "Muslim" mean "terrorist"? This is such perverse, backward, prejudiced logic, I fear for your sanity.

"Clinton commits felonies while in office - good..."

I don't remember a conviction. Do you? Colorful history lesson here?

"Clinton says mass graves in Serbia - good...
"Entire world says WMD in Iraq - bad...
"No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
"No WMD found Iraq - bad..."

Uh, these are just ugly lies, along the lines of holocaust denial. I direct you to the truth; here's what the "world" has said about mass grave in Serbia:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9908/02/yugo.01/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1414735.stm
http://www.freeserbia.net/Articles/2002/Graves.html

"Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
"Economy on upswing under Bush - bad..."

Here's something basic. The Stock market and the economy are not the same thing. How's the unemployment rate in the US these days?

"Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
"World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad..."

Clinton refused? When did he refuse? When did he have a clear opportunity to apprehend him?

"Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
"Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad..."

Again, there's the whole "there's a right way and wrong way" debate. Does anyone think the USA is more safe from terror attacks now? All Bush has done is poke the hornet's nest with a stick, endangering millions of innocent people, some of whom have already been beheaded.

"Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
"Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad..."

Can we make a list of all the trouble spots in the World that Bush isn't dealing with? It will be a long list.

"Milosevic not yet convicted - good..."
Due process in the world court.

"Saddam turned over for trial - bad..."
International law? What international law?


Now, before you unlock your gun cabinet and head down to the book-burning party at the church, I urge you to consider the facts more closely.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 227

Posts: 4914/17300
EXP: 178110000
For next: 856865

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 6 min.
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 12.7.04 2329.08
Reposted on: 12.7.11 2329.12
    Originally posted by Stilton
    Now, before you unlock your gun cabinet and head down to the book-burning party at the church,
Cut it out. That's totally unnecessary.
Leroy
Boudin blanc
Level: 96

Posts: 379/2334
EXP: 8783016
For next: 205803

Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 1054 days
Last activity: 1054 days
#8 Posted on 13.7.04 0032.06
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0032.08
    Originally posted by Stilton
    I'm not saying Clinton didn't mess-up from time to time, but this is just plain prejudiced "Liberal" bashing:


Bashing Clinton and bashing "liberals" are two entirely different things.
Stilton
Frankfurter
Level: 59

Posts: 400/793
EXP: 1631382
For next: 41756

Since: 7.2.04
From: Canada

Since last post: 4610 days
Last activity: 4609 days
#9 Posted on 13.7.04 0056.07
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0056.15
    Originally posted by Leroy
      Originally posted by Stilton
      I'm not saying Clinton didn't mess-up from time to time, but this is just plain prejudiced "Liberal" bashing:


    Bashing Clinton and bashing "liberals" are two entirely different things.


Not when the name of the thread is, however snide, "Inside the mind of a liberal"
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 61

Posts: 517/836
EXP: 1823141
For next: 53466

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 3963 days
Last activity: 3850 days
#10 Posted on 13.7.04 0224.30
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0224.33
Damn! Stilton! You sound like one angry ass Canuck.

No, the stock market and the economy are two different things, but they are very much related, aren't they? That's pretty basic, bud.

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

Clinton's fumbling with the bin laden situation has been known for a long time, where have you been?

No Clinton wasn't convicted of anything, but he did lose his license to practice law in Arkansas, didn't he? I think that is pretty indicative of his guilt.

You say Bush is poking the hornet's nest? Good God, what will open your eyes. Didn't 911(and the Embassies and the USS Cole) show you that these people are going to attack us no matter what?
We can't just appease them, they hate us and our way of life, they fear our freedom. They want to destroy us as much as they want to push Israel into the Sea.


Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 3459/4700
EXP: 24777679
For next: 272042

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2695 days
Last activity: 1150 days
#11 Posted on 13.7.04 0610.03
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0611.26
    Originally posted by Stilton
    Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian
    terrorists - good..."

    Uh, so when does "Christian" mean "good" and "Muslim" mean "terrorist"? This is such perverse, backward, prejudiced logic, I fear for your sanity.
I do believe the operative word there was TERRORIST. Not Muslim or Christian. It's amazing how you ignored that word to try and make a racial point.

    Originally posted by Stilton
    Does anyone think the USA is more safe from terror attacks now? All Bush has done is poke the hornet's nest with a stick, endangering millions of innocent people, some of whom have already been beheaded.
Of course we are safer. Mainly because we are winning the war on terorr.

    Originally posted by Stilton
    Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
    "Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad..."

    Can we make a list of all the trouble spots in the World that Bush isn't dealing with?
A fair point, as I have criticized the issues in the Sudan and Zimbabwe. Of course, neither country has threatened the United States(see Afghanistan, Iraq). It
    Originally posted by Stilton
    "Milosevic not yet convicted - good..."
    Due process in the world court.

    "Saddam turned over for trial - bad..."
    International law? What international law?
Hate to break it to you, butt there is not such thing as International Law.

    Originally posted by Stilton
    Now, before you unlock your gun cabinet and head down to the book-burning party at the church, I urge you to consider the facts more closely.
Thank you for proving your ignorance for me.
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 55

Posts: 620/641
EXP: 1263237
For next: 50961

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 5127 days
Last activity: 4786 days
#12 Posted on 13.7.04 0753.32
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0755.27
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Mainly because we are winning the war on terorr.



Yep, we can put that trophy right next to the one we got for winning the war on drugs.

When you say "win" you, no doubt, mean: "soldiers being killed almost daily by terrorists groups operating in Iraq."

I will say this again...It is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat a concept. You cannot win a war against an "-ism." You can kill people, you can bomb entire regions...You cannot defeat other people's hate for us.

There is only 2 ways to stop it...Genocide and breeding the insurgents out of existance. And those only work if you do it completely.

I guess those are the next battle tactics in the War on Terror
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 101

Posts: 957/2743
EXP: 10614621
For next: 103091

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 328 days
Last activity: 230 days
#13 Posted on 13.7.04 0910.38
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0912.21
Although Threep goes a bit farther than I would, I agree. The scariest part is the terrorists coming up now have been indoctrinated since birth about the evils of our country and Western democracies in general.

Unless we move away from our present policies and really work to understand what we are dealing with, the best we will ever do is minimize the terror.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 3461/4700
EXP: 24777679
For next: 272042

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2695 days
Last activity: 1150 days
#14 Posted on 13.7.04 0918.54
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0919.38
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    Although Threep goes a bit farther than I would, I agree. The scariest part is the terrorists coming up now have been indoctrinated since birth about the evils of our country and Western democracies in general.

    Unless we move away from our present policies and really work to understand what we are dealing with, the best we will ever do is minimize the terror.
And that fact has nothing to do with Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Islamofascists have been training to commit terrorism on the west for a long time. This would have continue with our without Afghanistan, much less Iraq. May I direct your attention to the World Trade Center, Dar es Salaam, Kobar Towers, Nairobi, etc.

There are two ways to deal with this:

- Roll over and die(purported by certain liberal, the Spanish Government, and now the Filipino Government)

- Fight back(purported by Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards and most of the civilized world)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 138

Posts: 2792/5410
EXP: 31085580
For next: 577480

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 1052 days
Last activity: 471 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 13.7.04 0950.01
Reposted on: 13.7.11 0953.14
    Originally posted by Grimis
    There are two ways to deal with this:

    - Roll over and die(purported by certain liberal, the Spanish Government, and now the Filipino Government)

    - Fight back(purported by Bush, Cheney, Kerry, Edwards and most of the civilized world)

The problem is not the act of fighting back which people are rebelling against. It's the act of not committing your resources where they might actually be doing something. I can get out of my cube at work and go punch my boss in the face and say that I am not rolling over and letting the terrorists win, and I think I will probably be almost as effective in ending terrorist threats to the U.S. as the act of being in Iraq is. I feel like we would be better off going into the Sudan and keeping that country from destabilizing to the point where it can be like Afghanistan and terrorist groups can set up their own fiefdoms to plot attacks from. We'd be better off going in and destroying the House of Saud. We'd be better off taking our troops into North Korea and ending their nuclear capability. We'd be better off committing the resources to help Russia and its former republics to a true full accounting of their nuclear arsenal. We'd be better off doing damn near anything other than Iraq. Instead we've lost over 1,000 of our soldiers and at the end of it I'm not sure we're not more at risk than when we started.
A Fan
Liverwurst
Level: 71

Posts: 682/1164
EXP: 3102146
For next: 64983

Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 4983 days
Last activity: 4983 days
#16 Posted on 13.7.04 1029.55
Reposted on: 13.7.11 1033.58
I'm going to be banned for this, but CRZ, I think you maybe a bit biased here. I know that Stilton was a bit out of line. However, most of Grimis posts are almost doing the same thing except hiding it behind ten dollar words. Plus, wasn't their a rule about linking stuff and not typing it out on the boards? I just don't like this board and when I do come here to see what is going on it feels like whatever the liberals say is treated harsher than what the conservatives say. Its just the way I see it.
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 49

Posts: 168/517
EXP: 861328
For next: 22561

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 588 days
Last activity: 161 days
#17 Posted on 13.7.04 1055.21
Reposted on: 13.7.11 1059.01
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    It is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat a concept. You cannot win a war against an "-ism."


Threep-

Didn't we go through this already?

You CAN defeat an "ism" you just have to have the will to do so.
Communism/Marxism in the Soviet Union.
Nazism in Germany.
Imperialism in Japan.

Some were won with force some through economic strategies, but they were all defeated by the US.
If we show the will to fight them & not cower behind the threat they pose, terrorism (specifically the states that support & sponsor it) will fail as well...
SKLOKAZOID
Bierwurst
Level: 86

Posts: 742/1803
EXP: 5943100
For next: 199031

Since: 20.3.02
From: California

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 13.7.04 1106.43
Reposted on: 13.7.11 1108.34
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
    Didn't we go through this already?

    You CAN defeat an "ism" you just have to have the will to do so.
    Communism/Marxism in the Soviet Union.
    Nazism in Germany.
    Imperialism in Japan.

    Some were won with force some through economic strategies, but they were all defeated by the US.
    If we show the will to fight them & not cower behind the threat they pose, terrorism (specifically the states that support & sponsor it) will fail as well...


You can defeat a sovereign nation that abides by an "-ism", but you cannot defeat the ideal or the concept. There are still communists in this world, there are still people who believe in that idea. There are still hardliners in Russia.

We went into Afghanistan and (justifiably) disabled the Taliban's infrastructure that enabled Al Qaeda to operate, but we did not stop terrorism as a whole. I personally don't think that Al Qaeda exists today (at least, not as we knew it), but terrorist networks are all loosely linked and are not bound by an organized government, such as what existed in Russia and Germany.

At least with a government, there is accountability. The Taliban was accountable for Afghanistan. The USSR was accountable for Communist Russia. The Nazi regime was accountable for Germany. Al Qaeda is not the one, lone accountable terrorist group for all of terrorism. Possibly the best-funded with the best resources, but getting rid of Al Qaeda doesn't stop a Zarqawi or whoever from rising up in Iraq and beheading people. It doesn't stop a lone shoebomber on an airline.

With a collection of cells that don't always have anything to do with each other (except their core beliefs), there is no central system we can attack to permanently disable the enemy.

So, as long as these independent cells lack structure and an overt central point of communication, we really can't defeat them by sheer force alone or even through diplomacy with one terrorist cell. Once you get rid of one, several more pop up like insects.

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 13.7.04 0908)

(edited by SKLOKAZOID on 13.7.04 0910)
The Lurk
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 40/83
EXP: 54613
For next: 3738

Since: 7.6.04

Since last post: 5164 days
Last activity: 5164 days
#19 Posted on 13.7.04 1110.24
Reposted on: 13.7.11 1111.27
    Originally posted by Von Maestro
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      It is IMPOSSIBLE to defeat a concept. You cannot win a war against an "-ism."


    Threep-

    Didn't we go through this already?

    You CAN defeat an "ism" you just have to have the will to do so.
    Communism/Marxism in the Soviet Union.
    Nazism in Germany.
    Imperialism in Japan.

    Some were won with force some through economic strategies, but they were all defeated by the US.
    If we show the will to fight them & not cower behind the threat they pose, terrorism (specifically the states that support & sponsor it) will fail as well...


First of all, Communism and Imperialism are types of government systems and not solely ideology, so the comparison is a little off base.

Nazism, which is the only one really that close to terrorism, still exists, albeit in rogue pockets here and there.

We brought down the nation-state that had adopoted Nazism but not the idea in general.

With terrorism, there is no nation-state that we can bring down and declare victory over. And, just like Nazism, the rogue pockets exist and always will.

Defeating an ideology is not as simple as toppling a regime.


Edit: Sklok beat me to it...:)

(edited by The Lurk on 13.7.04 0911)
Von Maestro
Boudin rouge
Level: 49

Posts: 169/517
EXP: 861328
For next: 22561

Since: 6.1.04
From: New York

Since last post: 588 days
Last activity: 161 days
#20 Posted on 13.7.04 1117.14
Reposted on: 13.7.11 1117.17
SKLOKAZOID & The Lurk-

I agree with the gist of what you are both saying, & that is why I said terrorism & "specifically the states that support & sponsor it".

Just like we defeated the countries that supported & sponsored Nazism (leaving the world with "pockets" of Nazis with no formal country to base their beliefs), so too must we defeat terrorism in the same way.

Yes there will always be "pockets" of terrorists, but if we take away the countries that support them (both with safe harbor & financially) then we will go a long way in defeating them in the same manner that we have the Nazis.

~VM
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Food-for-Oil Scandal: French National Bank issued Subpeonad
Next thread: Marriage Amendment Mail Fail to Reach Majrity
Previous thread: Newsweek editor admits Kerry-Edwards cheerleading
(1206 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Inside the mind of a Liberal...Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 2.005 seconds.