You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You can take the....
- Thread starter sputdr
- Start date
Why is it hypocrisy? I am discussing current events, I have no interest in discussing ancient history. Your desire to change the subject and sputr's daily rants about Bill Clinton are obvious attempts to obfuscate the discussion of today's serious issues though.Quote from whitster:
translation: hypocrisy.
Quote from dddooo:
Why is it hypocrisy? I am discussing current events, I have no interest in discussing ancient history. Your desire to change the subject and sputr's daily rants about Bill Clinton are obvious attempts to obfuscate the discussion of today's serious issues though.
Don't you think that Bill Clinton's refusal to address terrorism and when Sudan offered up Bin Laden is relevant to current events?
Can you make the connection?
which serious issues?
my point is that invading countries is nothing new.
some i have supported (regardless of the party affiliation of the curent president) and some i don't
recognizing that this is hardly a new edifice of the evul neocon bush cabal (tm) is instructive in giving perspective though
something i am sensing you lack
my point is that invading countries is nothing new.
some i have supported (regardless of the party affiliation of the curent president) and some i don't
recognizing that this is hardly a new edifice of the evul neocon bush cabal (tm) is instructive in giving perspective though
something i am sensing you lack
Of course it is nothing new and I never said it was. It just does not make it any less wrong than it was before, it does not make the brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion any less brainwashed, ignorant and blind than their predesessors. Whether the democrats or republicans were idiots 50 years ago is irrelevant now, today republicans are.Quote from whitster:
my point is that invading countries is nothing new.
That's exactly my point, you keep whining about ancient history (Bill Clinton) as if it's supposed to justify this total failure of a president that you voted for twice and whose completely moronic and incompetent policies you have blindly supported for almost 6 years.Quote from sputdr:
Don't you think that Bill Clinton's refusal to address terrorism and when Sudan offered up Bin Laden is relevant to current events?
Whether the sudanese offer did or did not happen, whether Clinton could or could not accept it and prosecute OBL, whether it was a mistake or not is absolutely irrelevant to the disaster Bush and republicans have been during the last 6 years, including BTW being asleep at the wheel on 9/11 and not being able to catch OBL and Mullah Omar.
Whether you like it or not but a disproportionately high number of american casualties from terrorism happened under republican administrations - Reagan and GWB. Why is it by the way you're not whining that Reagan and Bush Senior did not address terrorism, that they actually created and armed OBL and that Reagan ran from Lebanon with his tail between his legs?
Every
Single
Time
The
Right
Wingers
Bring
Up
Clinton
Or
Any
Other
Democrats
When
Criticism
Is
Directed
At
Bush
It
Is
A
Straw
Man
Fallacy.
Bottom line:
If the democratic USSR had invaded Iraq claiming Saddam had WMD, the right wingers would be up in arms screaming about a Soviet invasion and agression....they would not be cheering that the Iraqi people had been liberated, that "democracy" was being given to the people of Iraq.
Let's not dance around the truth, this is/was a war of U.S. imperialism, not at all about National Security, not about human rights, and not at all about National Security because Saddam, like so many two bit dictators, wanted to have nukes. EVERY SINGLE DICTATOR WANTS NUKES....Castro has access to them, why is he in power?
Single
Time
The
Right
Wingers
Bring
Up
Clinton
Or
Any
Other
Democrats
When
Criticism
Is
Directed
At
Bush
It
Is
A
Straw
Man
Fallacy.
Bottom line:
If the democratic USSR had invaded Iraq claiming Saddam had WMD, the right wingers would be up in arms screaming about a Soviet invasion and agression....they would not be cheering that the Iraqi people had been liberated, that "democracy" was being given to the people of Iraq.
Let's not dance around the truth, this is/was a war of U.S. imperialism, not at all about National Security, not about human rights, and not at all about National Security because Saddam, like so many two bit dictators, wanted to have nukes. EVERY SINGLE DICTATOR WANTS NUKES....Castro has access to them, why is he in power?
Quote from TheConMan:
Which ET posters do you think will be the first volunteers when the Nazi Flag goes up in D.C.
The centrist Democrats. Like the Nazis they use the press as their propaganda machine, they are internally socialistic and externally anti communistic, in their view people are children of nature not children of God, children are property of the state not their parents, etc.
i really detest elitism like this
case in point
"brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion "
there are many for and against the invasion.
regardless, being on either side does not suggest, imply, or mean that there is blindness, ignorance, or brainwashing
SOME on either side are all of the above. but it doesn't follow
it is a common ploy, and one i see more often on the left, and i read Mother Jones, the Nation, etc. and other leftwing pubs constantly - that people who have a different POV are either 1) stupid, blind, ignorant, etc. or 2) evil
i see this constantly
one can disagree with the invasion or agree with it. one can disagree with another on that point. fwiw, there is disagreement AMONG repubs, dems, green, libs, etc. heck lots of dems were for it. the point is that having a pro-invasion POV does not imply brainwashing, ignorance, etc.
i do not disrespect those who were against the invasion by claiming that.
THAT is a classic way to attack the person vs. the idea, and also has little basis in the reality of why and how people analyze data to make decisions
case in point
"brainwashed, ignorant and blind supporters of this invasion "
there are many for and against the invasion.
regardless, being on either side does not suggest, imply, or mean that there is blindness, ignorance, or brainwashing
SOME on either side are all of the above. but it doesn't follow
it is a common ploy, and one i see more often on the left, and i read Mother Jones, the Nation, etc. and other leftwing pubs constantly - that people who have a different POV are either 1) stupid, blind, ignorant, etc. or 2) evil
i see this constantly
one can disagree with the invasion or agree with it. one can disagree with another on that point. fwiw, there is disagreement AMONG repubs, dems, green, libs, etc. heck lots of dems were for it. the point is that having a pro-invasion POV does not imply brainwashing, ignorance, etc.
i do not disrespect those who were against the invasion by claiming that.
THAT is a classic way to attack the person vs. the idea, and also has little basis in the reality of why and how people analyze data to make decisions