Ya Like how history vindicated the IRA? lolCameronPoe wrote:
Like how history vindicated Vietnam? lolG3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
Poll
Choose Your Scumbag
| G Dubya | 65% | 65% - 94 | ||||
| SlickWilly | 34% | 34% - 49 | ||||
| Total: 143 | ||||||
You're likening the US to a terrorist organisation now. I never expected that one...usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya Like how history vindicated the IRA? lolCameronPoe wrote:
Like how history vindicated Vietnam? lolG3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
Well you do, so I figure why not.CameronPoe wrote:
You're likening the US to a terrorist organisation now. I never expected that one...
You know the day they had Laden in sight there was a UAE's plane with members of the royal family and Tenet called the strike off. How is this Clinton's fault at all? And Clinton acknowledged that he tried to get Bin Laden but he failed. He had the balls to admit it.usmarine2005 wrote:
We never had Laden in our sights after 9/11 serge. Just because Bush was doing whatever, don't make the mistake of thinking the CIA and other agencies were not trying to find him. Fact is, we knew where he was years before 9/11. Shit, even Sudan or Egypt or one of them offered him to Clinton on a silver fucking platter.sergeriver wrote:
Dude, he lied to you in your face, he used 9/11 (I'm not saying he had to do with it) as an excuse. He has no ethics or moral. Richard Clarke adviced him to watch al-Qaeda but the guy was too distracted with Saddam and then 9/11 happened. Clinton didn't shoot, maybe that was a mistake, but this guy shoot the wrong guy. Where's Bin Laden? He didn't shoot Bin Laden, never. So, he failed at getting Bin Laden, too. I prefer to do nothing rahter than doing the wrong thing.
You started the ridiculous comparisons with Vietnam and Iraq so ...CameronPoe wrote:
You're likening the US to a terrorist organisation now. I never expected that one...usmarine2005 wrote:
Ya Like how history vindicated the IRA? lolCameronPoe wrote:
Like how history vindicated Vietnam? lol
That was just one instance. You forget whatever country it was wanted to give him to us. And it was Jordan, not UAE I think.sergeriver wrote:
You know the day they had Laden in sight there was a UAE's plane with members of the royal family and Tenet called the strike off. How is this Clinton's fault at all? And Clinton acknowledged that he tried to get Bin Laden but he failed. He had the balls to admit it.usmarine2005 wrote:
We never had Laden in our sights after 9/11 serge. Just because Bush was doing whatever, don't make the mistake of thinking the CIA and other agencies were not trying to find him. Fact is, we knew where he was years before 9/11. Shit, even Sudan or Egypt or one of them offered him to Clinton on a silver fucking platter.sergeriver wrote:
Dude, he lied to you in your face, he used 9/11 (I'm not saying he had to do with it) as an excuse. He has no ethics or moral. Richard Clarke adviced him to watch al-Qaeda but the guy was too distracted with Saddam and then 9/11 happened. Clinton didn't shoot, maybe that was a mistake, but this guy shoot the wrong guy. Where's Bin Laden? He didn't shoot Bin Laden, never. So, he failed at getting Bin Laden, too. I prefer to do nothing rahter than doing the wrong thing.
Regarding Bin Laden, ok maybe. But Bush started a war over nothing, he didn't get Bin Laden either, and he made a disaster with domestic issues.usmarine2005 wrote:
Well how can you even compare serge? History has proven Clinton wrong. Now we have to wait and see with Iraq.
I think it was UAE, but maybe I'm wrong. It doesn't matter. They offered Bin Laden, you are right and Clinton adviced by Tenet accepted several times, but the deals always failed.usmarine2005 wrote:
That was just one instance. You forget whatever country it was wanted to give him to us. And it was Jordan, not UAE I think.sergeriver wrote:
You know the day they had Laden in sight there was a UAE's plane with members of the royal family and Tenet called the strike off. How is this Clinton's fault at all? And Clinton acknowledged that he tried to get Bin Laden but he failed. He had the balls to admit it.usmarine2005 wrote:
We never had Laden in our sights after 9/11 serge. Just because Bush was doing whatever, don't make the mistake of thinking the CIA and other agencies were not trying to find him. Fact is, we knew where he was years before 9/11. Shit, even Sudan or Egypt or one of them offered him to Clinton on a silver fucking platter.
They're not actually that ridiculous.Stingray24 wrote:
You started the ridiculous comparisons with Vietnam and Iraq so ...
1. Couldn't tell friend from foe in either conflict.
2. Both wars of choice.
3. Both involved guerrilla style warfare.
4. My Lai Massacre, Haditha Massacre/Abu Ghraib, etc.
5. China, North Korea and USSR dabbling in the background, Syria, Saudi Arabia, UK, Poland, Iran dabbling in the background.
6. Popular opinion on the ground in both cases was anti-occupation force ("Go Home").
7. Both conflicts tore the 'liberated' country to shreds.
8. Vietnam started as a civil war, Iraq turned into one.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-12-21 13:16:18)
I agree with your assessments. So why do traditional conservatives support him and why did they vote for him? That's like a self-described liberal voting for Clinton, when Kucinich would be closer to the ideal.Kmarion wrote:
In fact most Conservatives have a policy of non-intervention. Ron Paul describes himself as a conservative. Would you say he and Bush have the same base? Leave nation building and the overt foreign policy to the Neo-Cons. Understand that we like everything smaller and controlled (hence conservative). Invasions in foreign lands when there is no clear threat is by no means conservative. We believe in helping business grow because we know when done properly in a free market this creates jobs and competitive wages. Not because we don't give a damn about anyone else.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I would say Dubya played right into his base - pro-business, social conservative, interventionist.Kmarion wrote:
Dubya.. At least I know what to expect with Clinton. Dubya completely sold out his base.
We don't believe in messing around with the Constitution, especially with rights. Again, think about the word conservative. Traditional Conservatives believe in smaller government, tight spending, and tough immigration positions. Bush had none of those qualities. Talks of Amnesty would be the most glaring and obvious point.
I never said he was a traditional conservative, I just pointed out he played into his base - and happened to convince some other people to vote for him because they think he is a "conservative" because he was the Republican candidate.
Maybe that's one reason people shouldn't vote based on party affiliation or labels.
...SharkyMcshark wrote:
Hey look I made it 100% for Dubya. If the poll closes now it'll be 100% Dubya. Do it!
Yeah, I can't believe how obvious it is. Kind of reminds me of FOX and CNN News.
Spot on my man. That's why he gets the label Neo(or new)-con. There was nothing in his campaign that would indicates his reckless spending and his plan of Amnesty.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I agree with your assessments. So why do traditional conservatives support him and why did they vote for him? That's like a self-described liberal voting for Clinton, when Kucinich would be closer to the ideal.Kmarion wrote:
In fact most Conservatives have a policy of non-intervention. Ron Paul describes himself as a conservative. Would you say he and Bush have the same base? Leave nation building and the overt foreign policy to the Neo-Cons. Understand that we like everything smaller and controlled (hence conservative). Invasions in foreign lands when there is no clear threat is by no means conservative. We believe in helping business grow because we know when done properly in a free market this creates jobs and competitive wages. Not because we don't give a damn about anyone else.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
I would say Dubya played right into his base - pro-business, social conservative, interventionist.
We don't believe in messing around with the Constitution, especially with rights. Again, think about the word conservative. Traditional Conservatives believe in smaller government, tight spending, and tough immigration positions. Bush had none of those qualities. Talks of Amnesty would be the most glaring and obvious point.
I never said he was a traditional conservative, I just pointed out he played into his base - and happened to convince some other people to vote for him because they think he is a "conservative" because he was the Republican candidate.
Maybe that's one reason people shouldn't vote based on party affiliation or labels.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I personally think you're insane.G3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
I'm pissed that Bush was supposed to be my guy, and he isn't. I don't mind the war, or any of the rest of his shit, but he is giving $100 billion to AIDS research in Africa over the course of 10 years (that's like $1,000 for every actual TAXPAYER in the United States). He's spending money on every bullshit social program that comes down the pipe, and I'm sick of it. I voted for him so he'd tell the Democrats and their ninny-ass socialist "let's feed everybody" agenda to go fuck themselves, and instead he's become one of them.
Um... you're not pissed about the war, but you are pissed about foreign aid?...Dersmikner wrote:
I'm pissed that Bush was supposed to be my guy, and he isn't. I don't mind the war, or any of the rest of his shit, but he is giving $100 billion to AIDS research in Africa over the course of 10 years (that's like $1,000 for every actual TAXPAYER in the United States). He's spending money on every bullshit social program that comes down the pipe, and I'm sick of it. I voted for him so he'd tell the Democrats and their ninny-ass socialist "let's feed everybody" agenda to go fuck themselves, and instead he's become one of them.
With the exception of Social Security, the Iraq War costs us more than anything else. I'd be pretty pissed about the billions we spend on Iraq, if you actually believe in smaller government.
Granted, I think we can agree that Social Security is a waste.
I love it how people think they know more than the president. The cold facts are, you barely know a fraction of what he does.Turquoise wrote:
I personally think you're insane.G3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
Do you know enough about the president to make that call, or do you just think you know more about him than me?G3|Genius wrote:
I love it how people think they know more than the president. The cold facts are, you barely know a fraction of what he does.Turquoise wrote:
I personally think you're insane.G3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
Then I guess we shouldn't support or oppose the president since we don't everything he knows, or any president before or after him.G3|Genius wrote:
I love it how people think they know more than the president. The cold facts are, you barely know a fraction of what he does.Turquoise wrote:
I personally think you're insane.G3|Genius wrote:
I personally think that History will vindicate Bush and condemn the media of this era.
"when Bill Lied Nobody Died"
Be yet another cunt who has forgotten the face of his/her father.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
The end point is, what will the next guy do?Pug wrote:
Are we arguing about morals?
Bush is in it for money. Clinton was in it for easy secretaries.
Scumbags? No.
Money and poontastic tangplundering? Yes.
Scumbags? No.
Money and poontastic tangplundering? Yes.
Did you know that Ireland is the only country in the world that has a statue dedicated to Bill Clinton...?
Tell me where it is so I can stop there and piss on it.CameronPoe wrote:
Did you know that Ireland is the only country in the world that has a statue dedicated to Bill Clinton...?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/4192 … 79.jpg?v=0
Is it near Shannon?
Last edited by usmarine2005 (2007-12-22 16:09:19)
It's quite near Shannon yes. Ballybunion.usmarine2005 wrote:
Tell me where it is so I can stop there and piss on it.CameronPoe wrote:
Did you know that Ireland is the only country in the world that has a statue dedicated to Bill Clinton...?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/4192 … 79.jpg?v=0
Is it near Shannon?
FUCK BUSH. Just say NO to bush