RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning?

RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 8:08:20 AM)
To me both are important. If only one is important to you, then focus on just that, instead of derailing other topics, and trying to impose on us what you feel should and should not be discussed. I await the other thread, as I feel it needs more discussion, and information given to people. That is your baby, so birth it or abort it. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Fargle, people can have multiple issues in front of them to deal with, and assign priority to those issues. You make it seem like nothing else should be done, but focus on that indictment 24/7. If that is what you wish to do, then why are you posting anything in the other threads? You should respond to every post with your fraud posts, but you do not, do you? I understand balancing multiple issues. Let's examine these priorities. 1) A HAS-BEEN politician makes a statement, which could be spun in a negative way, which in some way negatively affects the campaign of his Carpetbagging Cunt of a wife. 2) The person who ORDERED THE TORTURE OF PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY, also happened to COMMIT CRIMINAL FRAUD launching a war which has since resulted in a MILLION DEAD, the unlawful suspension of the Right of habeas corpus, Contempt of Court and Congress, and the Obstruction of Justice... Which one is important?

juliaoceania -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 9:35:34 AM)
quote: To me both are important. If only one is important to you, then focus on just that, instead of derailing other topics, and trying to impose on us what you feel should and should not be discussed. I await the other thread, as I feel it needs more discussion, and information given to people. That is your baby, so birth it or abort it. Why is it only ok for you to determine what posts are relevant and of value to the topic at hand? Why are you trying to impose your opinion of who should and who should not post on a thread or what points they should make? (Scratches head)

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 10:57:13 AM)
There is a forum etiquette, a common courtesy, to try and stay on topic. Level started the thread, which is similar to one I started, and had the two confused. So if you do not wish to follow etiquette, and show courtesy, then that is your choice. I thought that was pretty evident, and any intelligent person would know, especially an anthropologist. Use your common sense, if we are talking about oranges, you would only mention bananas to use in a comparison value. Then again common sense is not too common, now is it? As a refresher, her is the title of this thread "Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning?" Here is level's post: "By Glenn Kessler and Anne Kornblut Washington Post Staff Writers A former senior aide to then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice disputed Bill Clinton's statement this week that he "opposed Iraq from the beginning," saying that the former president was privately briefed by top White House officials about war planning in 2003 and that he told them he supported the invasion. Clinton's comments in Iowa on Tuesday went far beyond more nuanced remarks he made about the conflict in 2003. But the disclosure of his presence in briefings by Rice -- and his private expressions of support -- may add to the headaches that the former president has given his wife's campaign in recent weeks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802485.html " If you or Fargle start one about the fraud and indictment, then mention of this article would not be appropriate. This is why forums are sectioned, have section guidelines, and why people try and show mutual respect and courtesy. Do you feel these things should not be done? Let me know because I have some off thread things I will start posting in every topic you start, and then claim the same thing you are now. If you object to that occuring, then that is hypocricy. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: To me both are important. If only one is important to you, then focus on just that, instead of derailing other topics, and trying to impose on us what you feel should and should not be discussed. I await the other thread, as I feel it needs more discussion, and information given to people. That is your baby, so birth it or abort it. Why is it only ok for you to determine what posts are relevant and of value to the topic at hand? Why are you trying to impose your opinion of who should and who should not post on a thread or what points they should make? (Scratches head)

farglebargle -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 11:03:44 AM)
It's OBVIOUS that the entire purpose of promoting this story about Bill Clinton, at this time, is to distract people from the High Crimes committed by the present holders of the office. It's newsworthiness is so low as to approach that of the latest Whatever-her-name's Pregnancy story. It is fluff, designed to distract the Ignorant Masses, and should be clearly identified as such, so that everyone can better recognize this strategy of deception, and appropriately discount it in the future. It belongs in the National Enquirer -- that's being kind. It's this kind of "Reporting", and the attention paid to it which got us into this mess.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 11:14:17 AM)
It belongs where? We need an amendment first, to eliminate Freedom of the Press, and then we can get the government right on that. So why do you believe Bill did something to distract everyone? quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's OBVIOUS that the entire purpose of promoting this story about Bill Clinton, at this time, is to distract people from the High Crimes committed by the present holders of the office. It's newsworthiness is so low as to approach that of the latest Whatever-her-name's Pregnancy story. It is fluff, designed to distract the Ignorant Masses, and should be clearly identified as such, so that everyone can better recognize this strategy of deception, and appropriately discount it in the future. It belongs in the National Enquirer -- that's being kind. It's this kind of "Reporting", and the attention paid to it which got us into this mess.

farglebargle -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 11:15:50 AM)
Well, where else do you suggest "Celebrity Sensationalism" go? Certainly not in any rational discussion of policy!

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 11:19:20 AM)
I suggest it go where that newspaper wants it to go. I suggest that Freedom of the Press is a good thing, and voting against corporations with your money is their check and balance. So what do you propose to fix that? Who determines what is or is not a distraction? You? You distract from topics all the time, so I doubt your judgement as to what is or is not, a distraction. quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle Well, where else do you suggest "Celebrity Sensationalism" go? Certainly not in any rational discussion of policy!

farglebargle -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 11:25:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf I suggest it go where that newspaper wants it to go. I suggest that Freedom of the Press is a good thing, and voting against corporations with your money is their check and balance. So what do you propose to fix that? Who determines what is or is not a distraction? You? You distract from topics all the time, so I doubt your judgement as to what is or is not, a distraction. By deriding the laughable "Editorial Standards" exhibited as vociferously as possible. Exactly what I've been doing. Telling all that if they fall for this bait, they really need to become better educated consumers and much more critical of the product they're choosing to consume.

luckydog1 -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 12:30:07 PM)
Its obvious to Farg....Hence he will keep on untill he gets blocked or gets the last word on this. The facts involved here go against the theory he harps on like a broken record, so he can not tole=ate. Clinton did use force because he claimed Saddam had WMD and was refusing to accept UN law and deal with the Inspectors. Everything Bush said was based on what Clinton passed to him and was killing people over. Clinton bombed Iraq 3 days before Bush took over. Clinton bombed Al shifa in Sudan, because according to him Saddam was assisting OBL in the Manufacture of Sarin in Sudan. Part of one of the largest bombardment actions in History, which also included the Bombing of Iraq, Afganistan, and Sudan. Clinton was killing people over Sdaams and OBLS ties and the threat of non compliance by Saddam. Farg like to pretend he stands for principle, but its a joke. The president has the same authority to order a bombing in a 3rd party nation as he does to send troops there. If it was an illegal lie for send troops, it was also to drop bombs. Legal there is no distinction, it using millitary force. BTW Clinton did have American troops flying over Iraq every single day, because of his non compliance with relevant UN sanctions. Bush didn't make this stuff up as farg and so many are alledging. He took what Clinton passed him as real intelligence and policy seriously. That can be legitimatley debated as to whether or not he should have. But thats not Farg (or Clinton) are trying to do, for obviously partisan reasons.

Stephann -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 1:45:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Fargle, people can have multiple issues in front of them to deal with, and assign priority to those issues. You make it seem like nothing else should be done, but focus on that indictment 24/7. If that is what you wish to do, then why are you posting anything in the other threads? You should respond to every post with your fraud posts, but you do not, do you? I understand balancing multiple issues. Let's examine these priorities. 1) A HAS-BEEN politician makes a statement, which could be spun in a negative way, which in some way negatively affects the campaign of his Carpetbagging Cunt of a wife. 2) The person who ORDERED THE TORTURE OF PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY, also happened to COMMIT CRIMINAL FRAUD launching a war which has since resulted in a MILLION DEAD, the unlawful suspension of the Right of habeas corpus, Contempt of Court and Congress, and the Obstruction of Justice... Which one is important? Personally I consider the almost 6 million children dying each year of hunger to be a more pressing issue. If I were to spam every post with this information, my opinion on that particular topic would have the same deadening effect. Fargle, what are you doing to save those children's lives? The issue with Clinton isn't that he's a has-been; it's that he would likely have both hands elbow deep in his wife's administration. Her election would be little different from his reelection. He was a miserable piece of work in office, and his wife's little different. I marvel at the number of bills she's not voting on now, as a senator, because she's busy attending fundraisers. Stephan

juliaoceania -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 5:37:19 PM)
You are not the forum police for topical conversation...please try to remember that your ability to dominate anyone ends when they revoke consent, and I never granted it

Politesub53 -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 5:45:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle It's OBVIOUS that the entire purpose of promoting this story about Bill Clinton, at this time, is to distract people from the High Crimes committed by the present holders of the office. It's newsworthiness is so low as to approach that of the latest Whatever-her-name's Pregnancy story. It is fluff, designed to distract the Ignorant Masses, and should be clearly identified as such, so that everyone can better recognize this strategy of deception, and appropriately discount it in the future. It belongs in the National Enquirer -- that's being kind. It's this kind of "Reporting", and the attention paid to it which got us into this mess. I dont see that its obvious as to why the Washington Post printed the story. News is news after all. You are quick to damn the standard of reporting by the "Post" yet at other times post links to a story they have printed, if it suits your political arguments. I would argue that cherry picking what stories in the post are or are not newsworthy, is a tad ironic. As to the story itself, worldwide, if there is an election due, this type of article appears.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 6:28:24 PM)
Never said I was the forum police. I do not play with that consent bullshit. Then continue to not show mutual respect, courtesy, or ettiquette, that is all your choice. I would think that social constructs, and the rules of such would fall into anthropology though. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You are not the forum police for topical conversation...please try to remember that your ability to dominate anyone ends when they revoke consent, and I never granted it

juliaoceania -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 7:44:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf Never said I was the forum police. I do not play with that consent bullshit. Then continue to not show mutual respect, courtesy, or ettiquette, that is all your choice. I would think that social constructs, and the rules of such would fall into anthropology though. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You are not the forum police for topical conversation...please try to remember that your ability to dominate anyone ends when they revoke consent, and I never granted it In my opinion there is nothing off topic about posting an opinion that condi rice brought up Bill Clinton's supposed support for invading Iraq as a distraction... since the article is about what SHE said about Bill Clinton... Since we are talking about what a Bush Aid/Sec of State said about Clinton, why they said it is of some import to the story. Now in my opinion you are trying to stifle other people's opinions about this story by citing some forum etiquette rules that do not apply, and then bring anthropology up as some side swipe at me in a snarky way that IS a red herring to the conversation. Pot kettle black

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 8:33:27 PM)
Will file your opinion in the appropriate place. This conversation went wide of the OP long ago, so I am riding the derailment. So how is that anthropology going?

juliaoceania -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 8:41:13 PM)
You are being rude while chastising others for what you are doing, how is that working out for you? And if you want to know about my career path you can write my Daddy a note and ask him, I am not allowed to answer questions of that nature...

ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 8:47:52 PM)
2) The person who ORDERED THE TORTURE OF PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY, also happened to COMMIT CRIMINAL FRAUD launching a war which has since resulted in a MILLION DEAD, the unlawful suspension of the Right of habeas corpus, Contempt of Court and Congress, and the Obstruction of Justice... Wow, it's up to a million now ? What will it be tommorrow ? 5 googleplex ? What will the average temperature be next year 117 ? Bush and/or Israel took down the twin towers too, didn't they ? This widespread swallowing of propaganda would be funny if it didn't aid and abet the enemy and result in greater US casualities.

OrionTheWolf -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 9:05:20 PM)
What am I doing? I am responding to off OP comments. My comments originally were directed to the OP, I attempted to keep the debate on that topic, but like clock work, a few come along and want to tell the OP what the actual point is. I don't write Daddy's. You were the one that originally mentioned that, and then exhibit very little knowledge of that area, so I directed the question to you. Fargle is a big boy and really does not need you to stick up for him. I am still waiting on that thread from either you are fargle, but then again that would mean you would have to actually do something. Hey this works for me fine, I understand the anthropological view on what exactly is occuring here, and it is very amusing. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You are being rude while chastising others for what you are doing, how is that working out for you? And if you want to know about my career path you can write my Daddy a note and ask him, I am not allowed to answer questions of that nature...

farglebargle -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 9:29:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I dont see that its obvious as to why the Washington Post printed the story. News is news after all. You are quick to damn the standard of reporting by the "Post" yet at other times post links to a story they have printed, if it suits your political arguments. I would argue that cherry picking what stories in the post are or are not newsworthy, is a tad ironic. As to the story itself, worldwide, if there is an election due, this type of article appears. I've already posted the best response to that... quote: 1) A HAS-BEEN politician makes a statement, which could be spun in a negative way, which in some way negatively affects the campaign of his Carpetbagging Cunt of a wife. 2) The person who ORDERED THE TORTURE OF PRISONERS IN US CUSTODY, also happened to COMMIT CRIMINAL FRAUD launching a war which has since resulted in a MILLION DEAD, the unlawful suspension of the Right of habeas corpus, Contempt of Court and Congress, and the Obstruction of Justice... Which one is important?

farglebargle -> RE: Bill Clinton opposed war in Iraq from the beginning? (12/21/2007 9:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ArizonaSunSwitch Wow, it's up to a million now I'm starting with the John's Hopkins/MIT study done, IIRC a year ago, which published a range of 300,000 - 900,000 dead. I think it's reasonable to assume an additional 250,000 dead since then, pushing the range well over a million. Please give us your estimate, and the rationale behind it. quote: What will it be tommorrow ? 5 googleplex ? What will the average temperature be next year 117 ? Bush and/or Israel took down the twin towers too, didn't they ? Don't embarrass yourself with such stupidity.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125