liberals....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Foul. That is factually incorrect.

It's no use, darling.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

I guess you didn't benefit from Allah's wonderful tax cuts, eh? Poor thing.

Glad to know that you found the time to post a ****ty op-ed in your busy life.

Why is it ****ty?

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Foul. That is factually incorrect.

Well, SH clearly was a terrorist, so I do not think that is what you mean by factually incorrect - if you do, please explain.

As for the rest, I just posted a few days ago that Clinton agreed with W's position that SH needed to be removed because he was a terrorist who did horrible acts and after 9/11 could no longer be trusted with the notion that he might give the WMD to rogues. He just disagreed with the timing of the removal. He said he would have waited until the inspections ended. But do not take my word for it - here it is from the horse's mouth

Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs
Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Posted: 7:55 AM EDT (1155 GMT)

(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

Weapons inspectors led by Blix scoured Iraq for three and a half months before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 but left after President Bush issued an ultimatum to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to leave the country.

"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the Abu Ghraib prison abuses on poorly trained National Guard personnel and higher-ups in the Bush administration.

The former president said he was not surprised by the abuses committed by U.S. forces at Abu Ghraib but that he was surprised by their extent.

"There is no excuse for that," Clinton said.

Clinton blamed the abuses on the higher echelons of the Bush administration.

"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq

Kerry voted for the war, thought SH had WMD and was a real threat (http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/s...2002_1009.html ) - he also voted to give W the pwer to remove SH (which surely he knew W would do) Kerry just does not agree with W's timing and method. Actually, Kerry has said a few things on SH, so it is a little hard to follow - but I will still vote for him anyway
__________________________________________________________
So, I think what I said was true and without spin. If you know how Kerry and Clinton did not advocate his removal and just disagree with the timing, let's see the proof.

[gldstwmn]

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES

WHERE was your digital camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

WHERE was your digital camera!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know!

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Bumper sticker seen today when I was out driving around in the rain:

WITCHES DO IT IN CIRCLES

kinda reminded me of the bumper sticker I saw on a tribal vehicle a few months back:

"Vegetarian-Indian for "He who too lazy to catch own food"

Btw, Nothin' against anyone who is a Vegetarian.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

kinda reminded me of the bumper sticker I saw on a tribal vehicle a few months back:

"Vegetarian-Indian for "He who too lazy to catch own food"

Btw, Nothin' against anyone who is a Vegetarian.

LMAO

I once saw one on an old VW van being driven by an agin Marsha Marsha Marsha Brady look alike that said :Ban the Bomb - not the Baby!:

I also saw one that sais "I'd rather be spreadng cream cheese on an hermaphrodite"

Sick - just sick

[Sugar]

One of my favorite bumper stickers:

YOU! Outta the gene pool!

[estranged4life]

should be a bumper sticker:

Stupidity is not against the law...You're free to go.

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

Exactly.

Rob brought up the moore film in this thread, called it "ridiculous," and refuses to explain how it is ridiculous. He says it is full of half truths and lies, yet can't, or won't, point any out. I suspect he's waiting for Faux News to post their comprehensive assessment of the film. Post something original for once, not the ramblings of every other raging conservative.

**sigh**

Apparently you have never read any of my posts, ever. Wasn't it both you and Carn that I had a decent discussion about the Passion and morality? I thought I expressed my opinions quite clearly there. And, by the way, Wasn't it YOU who had such strong opinions about that film and you HADN"T EVEN SEEN IT???

Hypocritical...don't yah think???

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by dissention

If that's the case (which I can assure you it isn't), you have something in common with us.



I did, there's nothing there. And there won't be anything substantial because you can't prove that he lied once in that film.

Ahem...and where exactly is the proof that we went to Afghanistan only to build a freakin pipe line? Ridiculous...

It was one big op-ed statement...which is fine. BUT, where were all the soldiers and parents of soldiers who support the war? I have run into far more of those then not.

Liberals....always bitching about this or that but never any constructive plans of their own...I wonder what Moore's long term plans for peace in the Middle East or containing fundamentalist terrorism are??? Or, Kerry's for that matter....

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

No, I want you to explain what you meant by ridiculous and mistruths. You brought it up here. You tell us here.

Or are you one of those kids who punches a guy in the face and runs as fast as he can? Because that's what you do when you post something and refuse to back it up when called on it.

Again...pretty funny that there has been absolutly no counter points to the thoughts conveyed in the article I originally posted...everything points back to Moore...a guy who has no problems getting rich off of "greedy" Americans but is quick to bash them abroad.

Interesting....

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by CarneVaca

I am well aware of the intolerance from both sides, believe me. I get it from the Democrats, the Republicans and the fascists. But rather than complain about it, I decide whether I want to continue participating in these discussions or to pass on them. Either decision is acceptable, as far as I can tell.

But coming on here just to tell the rest of us how much better you are because you see the error of our ways is a bit silly. If you don't want to participate, that is your choice. But what do you gain by telling us how intolerant we are and therefore you will no longer participate? Are we supposed to stop, reevaluate our behavior and try to reform? Is that your goal?

I just think it's sad that you decided on Sept. 11 that siding with the warmongers and the blood-thirsters was the way to respond to the attacks. You hit me, I hit you. Go ahead, hit me back and I will knock you down. As humans, we really haven't made as much progress as we give ourselves credit for, have we?

Sometimes, in life, you have to fight for what's right. Not fair, but true. Because no matter how much you want to sing Kum bi Ya and pass the peace pipe around, somebody hates you and will want to kill you...even liberals. How do you propose dealing with such fundamentalist religious fanaticism? Appeasment??? Yes, we've tried that. That led to the USS Cole, the first and second WTC attacks, etc...

And, I am tired of hearing this lame excuse that we "imfringe upon their culture" or "American cultural Imperialism"....Bullsh*t! Because of instantaneous communication/media and quick travel, the world is becoming a global culture and economy. We are not imposing our culture so much as they are choosing to embrace it. The world needs to move forward and roll with the changes. I blame the monarchies and regimes of nations in the Middle East and Africa that have pretty much enslaved their people and prevented them from entering the modern era. I think this backlash is part religious fundamentalism fueled by the monarchies that refuse to let go of power and the frustration of their people in not being seen as equals in the global arena. I believe our intentions are to break that control and allow those people to join the world stage and prosper with everyone else.

Something had to be done. The UN sure as hell wasn't going to do anything. And I could care less what France or Germany thinks about us. F them. It boils down to our own security as Americans first, the rest of the world second.

Our security depends on having these people join the rest of the world in modernization. Changing a form of government is not going to squash one's cultural identity. On the contrary, I think it will allow for it to strengthen. Look at the Japanese or the Germans since the 1940's and 50's. Have they lost touch with their respective "cultures?"

My two cents...

Rob

[Rob67]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct. If you said I like W because:

he is strong on terror

the economy has gotten better

I support the war in Iraq

which are the usual iems, no one would have said "I respect your opinion" and here is why I do not think that. You would get pounced on. That is sad to me. And, although I try not to, I am guilty of it as well.

EXACTLY!

I have never pounced on anyone like that (and I challenge those to prove me wrong if you don't believe me). I have noticed this trend with both extremes, left and right. And this is why politics is a major turn off to most people. The lack of polite debate.

So much elitism and arrogance is sad.

Rob