Despicable Dems...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Do you even know what the Office of Special Plans was, genius? And if his political service is a pardon for his draft dodging, denying Clinton the same honor is pure hypocrisy on your part.


Southern Man said:
I never got on Clinton because he didn't serve in the military; he sucks because he put our troops in harms way then didn't support them, didn't retaliate after terrorists attacks on our soldiers, and let bin Laden go. Cheney, in contrast, fought terrorism and supported our troops: truly a Great American. *shrug*
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're truly ignorant of the facts, willfully ignorant or just another insipidly stubborn. bitter & beligerent neocon. YOU brought up Clinton and military service....I proved you to be hypocritical to do so, and now you try to BS your way out.

As for putting troops in harms way, it sure as hell wasn't Clinton who LIED to Congress, cooked intelligence via an Office of Special Projects, and and fostered a bogus invasion/occupation without proper planning or proper equipping of a large portion of our troops. Over 4,000 dead and maimed US troops can thank Cheney for that. How many US troops were killed or maimed under Clinton? And why don't you do some research as to how many terrorist were bagged & tagged under Clinton as opposed to the Shrub & Cheney? I'll wait for an honest answer.
 
cawacko said:
Haha Damo! A non Bush voter and you just got labled a neo-con.

Edit: Looks like dude labels everyone and everything a neo-con. Sorry Damo, you are not special.
Click to expand...

You talk the talk, you walk the walk...you get the label. And I would have thought better of you than to throw stones from behind others legs.
 
Taichiliberal said:
You talk the talk, you walk the walk...you get the label. And I would have thought better of you than to throw stones from behind others legs.
Click to expand...

As an addict to this board I spend way more time here than I should. One result is you get to know people's political positions pretty well. People have called Damo many names, neo-con not being one of them. Thus it caught my attention. I am not personal friends with Damo but I feel (possibly wrongly) that I know him well enough here that I can raze him about being labeled a neo-con. I thought it was funny.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You talk the talk, you walk the walk...you get the label. And I would have thought better of you than to throw stones from behind others legs.


cawacko said:
As an addict to this board I spend way more time here than I should. One result is you get to know people's political positions pretty well. People have called Damo many names, neo-con not being one of them. Thus it caught my attention. I am not personal friends with Damo but I feel (possibly wrongly) that I know him well enough here that I can raze him about being labeled a neo-con. I thought it was funny.
Click to expand...


:cool:
 
Taichiliberal said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
"unprotected"? Where did you get that from? And NATO is not the coalition of the coereced. And since when did neocons care what the UN thinks. Compare the lies and deceit that Cheney and folks pulled to invade Iraq, Clinton gets off light. Also, wasn't it the neocon driven GOP that bitched and moaned that Clinton was doing nothing in Iraq (despite maintaining Daddy Bush's embargo and no fly zones, and "strategic bombing"), and then when he did, they jumped all over him. Neocons can't have it both ways. So I suggest YOU think things through before you type...it helps.





When you've got something better than a movie reference, let me know. But for the record, don't confuse a strategic screw up to send armored reinforcements with "unprotected". Big freaking difference from the Bay of Pigs, which was a total screw up and abandonment.

If you claim not to be a neocon, then you should watch out that your opinion does not mimic their "logic". I don't have any rose colored view of Slick Willy....as I originally stated, he gamed the system to stay out of the army just like Cheney...the difference is that once in power Clinton didn't become a war mongering chickenhawk hell bent on the PNAC agenda.
Click to expand...
When I got something better than an accurate depiction? You are a real piece of work. "Strategic screw up"... yeah... It was evident that Clinton was not going to send in the correct cover for people in Somalia from the beginning, they were unprotected. Let's put it this way, if Bush had done it both of us would be saying that the President screwed the pooch and left our guys high and dry causing the incident that was depicted in that movie, but since Clinton did it, only one of us can speak the truth.

As for whether my opinion follows "their" logic or not, it is reality.

The same people upset at Bush for starting wars without UN approval, will defend to the death a chickenhawk democrat who started wars without UN approval. One who, unlike Bush, never even sought it.

Hypocrite much?

I personally don't care one iota about UN approval. I do not support undeclared wars, never will, and for me it doesn't matter what party starts them. Because of that I was against Iraq from the beginning. Had I been alive at the start of Korea and Viet Nam I would not like those ones either. I would have been against the first Iraqi conflict had they continued into full scale war without a declaration. I am against us being in Afghanistan without a declaration...

People who wear the label of their party so deeply that just one letter makes it so a person does no wrong make me laugh if they are of another party, and when they are in my party they make me angry.

You make me laugh.
 
Damocles said:
When I got something better than an accurate depiction? You are a real piece of work. "Strategic screw up"... yeah... It was evident that Clinton was not going to send in the correct cover for people in Somalia from the beginning, they were unprotected. Let's put it this way, if Bush had done it both of us would be saying that the President screwed the pooch and left our guys high and dry causing the incident that was depicted in that movie, but since Clinton did it, only one of us can speak the truth.

As for whether my opinion follows "their" logic or not, it is reality.

The same people upset at Bush for starting wars without UN approval, will defend to the death a chickenhawk democrat who started wars without UN approval. One who, unlike Bush, never even sought it.

Hypocrite much?

I personally don't care one iota about UN approval. I do not support undeclared wars, never will, and for me it doesn't matter what party starts them. Because of that I was against Iraq from the beginning. Had I been alive at the start of Korea and Viet Nam I would not like those ones either. I would have been against the first Iraqi conflict had they continued into full scale war without a declaration. I am against us being in Afghanistan without a declaration...

People who wear the label of their party so deeply that just one letter makes it so a person does no wrong make me laugh if they are of another party, and when they are in my party they make me angry.

You make me laugh.
Click to expand...

I'd give you some Rep for biatch slapping senor, the way you did; but I've got to spread it around, before it will let me.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Do you even know what the Office of Special Plans was, genius? And if his political service is a pardon for his draft dodging, denying Clinton the same honor is pure hypocrisy on your part.




I don't know if you're truly ignorant of the facts, willfully ignorant or just another insipidly stubborn. bitter & beligerent neocon. YOU brought up Clinton and military service....I proved you to be hypocritical to do so, and now you try to BS your way out.

As for putting troops in harms way, it sure as hell wasn't Clinton who LIED to Congress, cooked intelligence via an Office of Special Projects, and and fostered a bogus invasion/occupation without proper planning or proper equipping of a large portion of our troops. Over 4,000 dead and maimed US troops can thank Cheney for that. How many US troops were killed or maimed under Clinton? And why don't you do some research as to how many terrorist were bagged & tagged under Clinton as opposed to the Shrub & Cheney? I'll wait for an honest answer.
Click to expand...

Actually, you did: [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=440127&postcount=27"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Despicable Dems...[/ame] :)
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
"unprotected"? Where did you get that from? And NATO is not the coalition of the coereced. And since when did neocons care what the UN thinks. Compare the lies and deceit that Cheney and folks pulled to invade Iraq, Clinton gets off light. Also, wasn't it the neocon driven GOP that bitched and moaned that Clinton was doing nothing in Iraq (despite maintaining Daddy Bush's embargo and no fly zones, and "strategic bombing"), and then when he did, they jumped all over him. Neocons can't have it both ways. So I suggest YOU think things through before you type...it helps.





When you've got something better than a movie reference, let me know. But for the record, don't confuse a strategic screw up to send armored reinforcements with "unprotected". Big freaking difference from the Bay of Pigs, which was a total screw up and abandonment.

If you claim not to be a neocon, then you should watch out that your opinion does not mimic their "logic". I don't have any rose colored view of Slick Willy....as I originally stated, he gamed the system to stay out of the army just like Cheney...the difference is that once in power Clinton didn't become a war mongering chickenhawk hell bent on the PNAC agenda.


Damocles said:
When I got something better than an accurate depiction? You are a real piece of work. Calm down.... Movies always take artistic license with facts (embellishments, editing out for continuity, etc.)....even when they are working from documents of actual events. That's why people got real pissed with Mike Moore's work being put in documentary category. Also, FYI, the movie "Midnight Express", based on a true story, was criticized by the author (who lived the story) of the book for leaving out key scenes regarding homosexual relationship. So next time you see a movie, don't worship it too closely. "Strategic screw up"... yeah... It was evident that Clinton was not going to send in the correct cover for people in Somalia from the beginning, they were unprotected. Check the language, they needed reinforcements...and Clinton's bad decision cost lives, as it went down the chain of command. But let's be clear, this does NOT compare to lying in order to invade/occupy a country, and then rush in troops, many no properly equipped or trained, with no concrete plans. Let's put it this way, if Bush had done it both of us would be saying that the President screwed the pooch and left our guys high and dry causing the incident that was depicted in that movie, but since Clinton did it, only one of us can speak the truth. Pay attention, I never said Clinton was pristine in this, did I? I mererly pointed out the degree of bad decisions and willful actions weigh far worse for the Shrub & company.... and that's the truth!

As for whether my opinion follows "their" logic or not, it is reality. See above repsonses for clarification.
The same people upset at Bush for starting wars without UN approval, will defend to the death a chickenhawk democrat who started wars without UN approval. One who, unlike Bush, never even sought it. You left out NATO working with Clinton...big freaking difference to what the Shrub & company did. And exactly how many American troops died under Clinton?

Hypocrite much? I don't know...are you? I'm not. I didn't vote for Slick Willy's second term..and have a lot of stuff to dump on him for. But that is for another time, another place.

I personally don't care one iota about UN approval. Most people don't...but yet the conveniently dump on them whenever possible (whether warranted or not). And that is the problem...why belong to an organization if you're only going to follow the rules that you like, and then scream bloddy murder when others do the same? I do not support undeclared wars, never will, and for me it doesn't matter what party starts them. Because of that I was against Iraq from the beginning. Had I been alive at the start of Korea and Viet Nam I would not like those ones either. I would have been against the first Iraqi conflict had they continued into full scale war without a declaration. I am against us being in Afghanistan without a declaration... No problem there.

People who wear the label of their party so deeply that just one letter makes it so a person does no wrong make me laugh if they are of another party, and when they are in my party they make me angry.

You make me laugh. I'm an Independent, have been ever since I first registered to vote at 18...that I called you on opinions that parallel the stupidity of most neocon parrots is what has your knickers in a twist. Had you paid attention to what I was writing, you would have noted that I'm not a Dem partisan....but you keep laughing...hope it helps.
Click to expand...
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
I'd give you some Rep for biatch slapping senor, the way you did; but I've got to spread it around, before it will let me.
Click to expand...

Look Martha, it's that strange little boy who stands behind ladies skirts throwing rocks at that Senor Vicente again. I wonder does he even know what is going on?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by USFREEDOM911
I'd give you some Rep for biatch slapping senor, the way you did; but I've got to spread it around, before it will let me.


Damocles said:
It's the thought that counts. :thup:
Click to expand...

Man, I strongly suggest you watch this clown's "debating style" for awhile before you start accepting compliments from him....doesn't do much for your credibility. Don't take my word, ask others.
 
Damocles said:
Watch Blackhawk down and tell me that those people had proper cover. Where do I get "unprotected" from... :rolleyes:

Geez. It's like pretending there was proper cover for the Bay of Pigs...

As a person who isn't a "Neocon" I wouldn't know when they suddenly started caring about hypocrisy of people who promote UN support of one war, but ignore that such was never sought nor likely to be given in one that their guy went into.

I suggest you read what I say, as it will contain my opinion while my opinion will not be found in your magical opinion sensor it seems to be magic-deprived and inaccurate.
Click to expand...


It was a movie. And I suppose Jack Bauer keeps us safe from terrorism?

Watch Farenhight 911 :D
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, just as I thought....you got nothing.

say goodnight gracie.


Southern Man said:
Actually, what I got is typical of liberals like you, accusing a conservative of doing what they did. The written record proves this. :)
Click to expand...

Still blowing smoke? Don't you realize that you're not fooling anyone? You can't honestly answer a simple question or meet a simple burden of proof. Carry on, I'll just watch and shake my head in pity.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Now-now, sissie; don't get your panties in a knot.
You know how it irritates your backside.:mun:
Click to expand...

Wow....you can barely debate an issue beyond 5 posts, yet without even addressing the issue here, you've done nothing but throw insults from behind another poster, pull down your pants and call me a "sissy" (I see you still haven't learn to spell that one properly since grade school).

So you've got nothing to offer except divergence, distraction and just plain nonsense......so much more to pity.

When you grow up and join a conversation on an adult level, I'll be more than happy to engage in debate. Until then, you can enjoy all the insults you want without the threat of retaliation. Carry on.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
"unprotected"? Where did you get that from? And NATO is not the coalition of the coereced. And since when did neocons care what the UN thinks.

Compare the lies and deceit that Cheney and folks pulled to invade Iraq, Clinton gets off light. Also, wasn't it the neocon driven GOP that bitched and moaned that Clinton was doing nothing in Iraq


Lets just look back an see what the facts are....Neocons bitching ?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

Well...looks like all the "bitching" was before Bush was even elected....

except for the last one...that was bitching to Pres. Bush....by NEODEM SOCIALISTS....Inconvenient facts rear their ugly heads


(despite maintaining Daddy Bush's embargo and no fly zones, and "strategic bombing"), and then when he did, they jumped all over him. Neocons can't have it both ways. So I suggest YOU think things through before you type...it helps.
Click to expand...
.by.....PWNy
 
none of those democrats ordered the invasion, conquest and occupation of a foreign nation on bogus intel.

sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top