RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11

RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (Full Version)

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

Message

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:39:46 PM)
quote: Its been controlled for a LOOOONG time I'm afraid. Most of it by international financiers and Royal Blood. Bush JR, SR/Reagan/Clinton are just their Go-fors..and loyal servants. Kennedy was wiped out when he was going to go public about some of this. .....the ultimate goal behind ALL of this is a global fascist/socialist government. Is already happening in Europe (European Union) In Asia (asian pacific Union) and soon in the americas (Pan American Union.) To eventaully become.... One world One currency One Police force One Military Total control and dominion by a small elite over the entire planet, its people and its resources. Thats been the goal since the turn of the 19th centuryif not earlier. Novo Ordo seclorum I don’t buy your conspiracy theory. But I do agree that the world is eventually going to be under one central government. This is an ongoing process that has been in place for the past 5 to 6 centuries. It was not till the past 5 to 6 centuries that the Western European countries solidified into the countries that we know of today. Economic and security contributed to their integration. We see this even with our own history. The first generation of Americans still identified themselves with their own states rather than to the United States of America. These past few decades saw history repeating itself. Except this time, it is happening on a regional and continental level. Europe with the European Union, North America with NAFTA/CAFTA, South America with the South American Union, Africa with the Africa Union, and Asia with ASEAN + China. Coming down the pike - Free Trade Area of the Americas. Just as in the past, economic and security issues are contributing to these integrations. By the end of this century, Pan America + Australia and New Zealand, Europe, and Asia will be super nations. By the end of next century, we will be globally integrated under one central government. Given the movement of people in and out of the upper and lower economic strata, the idea that super rich people running this so that they can control the whole world is nothing but conspiracy theory. However; globalization would benefit them as they would not have to deal with a crap load of different regulations while running their businesses across national boundaries. It would benefit the rest of us as well as we would be doing what we are best at doing. And benefiting the rest of humanity while we are at it.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:43:35 PM)
dorsaisgirl1: its becouse of people like you that george bush got re elected ............. thats not a complament Considering that you apparently oppose my views, I would take that as a compliment. Notice how “people like me” formed the majority of those that casted their vote for president (electoral college reps). We gave Bush the popular vote. What is funny is that polling done that morning showed that the traitor candidate was kicking butt and taking names. Having said that, your comment should clue you in on reality. Despite what the polls say, people like me form the MAINSTREAM of America.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:45:34 PM)
trannysub007: herfacechair seems to have a deep seated need to be right, and will apparently stop at nothing to be so. I don’t’ have a need to be right at any level. I am just telling it like it is. I am presenting facts and assessments that I’ve gained from experience and research. I’ve said this once - on this thread, on the Dixie Chicks Thread, and in numerous message boards on the Internet. I’ve debated these very same issues over the past three years. Contrary to what you may have thought, YOU and anybody else that have made a comment against my posts, WERE NOT the first people that I’ve rebutted. This is not the first time that I’ve seen and rebutted many of the points that have been made on this thread. It should become obvious to anybody with reading comprehension abilities that I will keep on doing so. After the debate is over on this thread, I will debate this or some other topic that I’ve debated before on another message board. And I will keep going until the other posters don’t want to debate any more. trannysub007: Just as the USA cannot win the war in Iraq, WRONG! We ARE winning in Iraq. From a first hand account: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp quote: Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories. And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead. trannysub007: one cannot win a debate when one of the people debating is NEVER wrong. You win a debate by rebutting the person with not just a logical assessment, but with facts. So far, the people that I’ve rebutted on this thread have miserably failed to do that. They either present their opinions - which don’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny or to a fact check - or they present articles that don’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny or to a fact check. However, you do bring up a point that leads to one of the reasons to why I rebut certain posts. You see, I have fun doing this. I have fun debating with people who have no intentions of agreeing with anything that I say. When you have two people - who have absolutely no intentions of agreeing with each other - debating, you have an opportunity to get into a prolonged debate.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:48:31 PM)
“Quite frankly, you're clearly not worth that time.” - krys If you can’t even get straight what YOU plan to do, what makes you think that anything else you say would be right? krys: Sigh Is there any point? Yes, I’ve presented many points in the post that you responded to. krys: I find politics interesting, I find how the administration twisted the facts to put fear into the hearts of Americans, and the way in which you not only seem to embrace it but actually seem to wallow and hold pride in being fooled, both scientifically fascinating and profoundly sad. The only thing that you should find profoundly sad is how you fell for the lies about the administration - hook, line and sinker. The administration DID NOT twist the facts… http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp quote: Urban Legend: The Bush Administration in general, and the Vice President and his office in particular, pressured the Central Intelligence Agency to exaggerate evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Reality: Here is the verdict of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s bipartisan Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq: “The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence, or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered ‘yes.’” Urban Legend: The President and his administration intentionally misled the country into war with Iraq—and the “16 words” that appeared in the 2003 State of the Union are the best proof of it. In the words of Senator Ted Kennedy, “The gross abuse of intelligence was on full display in the President’s State of the Union…when he spoke the now infamous 16 words: ‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.’… As we all now know, that allegation was false….” Reality: On July 14, 2004—after a nearly half-year investigation—a special panel reported to the British Parliament that British intelligence had indeed concluded that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium from Africa. The Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, chaired by Lord Butler, summarized: “It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium…. The statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that ‘The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa’ was well-founded.” In the U.S., the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq revealed that the CIA considered it important that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.” The Select Committee on Intelligence also noted that the CIA reviewed and cleared the President’s State of the Union address.... I am not the one that was fooled. Your post reflects that not only did you allow yourself to be fooled, you FAILED to take any course of action to VALIDATE your sources of information. The only thing that I am wallowing in is the fact that I could use facts, analytical reasoning, and research to rebut the myths that people like you have about this war and about the administration. krys: On May 30, 2003, Bush stated "President George W Bush tells Polish TV: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories... we’ve so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." And they were there. The two biological laboratories were decontaminated. You do realize that chemical decontamination is within human grasp do you? Both during and immediately after the invasion, our troops started to uncover small samples of WMD. The two inspection teams that we sent in uncovered Saddam’s WMD program and his intent in continuing with that program after the UN weapon’s inspectors left. And then there is this: http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp quote: Upon his return from Iraq, weapons inspector David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, said in Senate testimony: “I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein…. I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought…. After 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt…. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country.” Dr. Kay’s report noted that, “We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002.” He concluded, “Saddam, at least as judged by those scientists and other insiders who worked in his military-industrial programs, had not given up his aspirations and intentions to continue to acquire weapons of mass destruction…. Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed. Several of these officials acknowledge receiving inquiries since 2000 from Saddam or his sons about how long it would take to restart CW [chemical weapons] production.” krys: However, on the same day, Lt. General James Conway, USMC stated: "It was a surprise to me then, it remains a surprise to me now, that we have not uncovered weapons... in some of the forward dispersal sites. Again, believe me, it’s not for lack of trying. We’ve been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they’re simply not there... We were simply wrong." First, Saddam is not going to hide his sensitive weaponry at obvious disposal sites. Nor is he going to hide his WMD at any of his ammunition supply point. Second, If he had talked to the troops on the ground, it would not have came as a surprise to him. The troops on the ground were starting to uncover traces of WMD at places people were not suspecting them to be at. krys: I tend to believe and respect the guys that are actually risking their lives than a man looking to preserve his presidential legacy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33082-2004May17.html quote: An artillery shell containing the nerve agent sarin exploded near a U.S. military convoy in Baghdad recently, releasing a small amount of the deadly chemical and slightly injuring two ordnance disposal experts, a top U.S. military official in Iraq said yesterday. NOTE: Nerve agents ARE Weapons of Mass Destruction. Now, having said that you would believe and respect the guys that are actually risking their lives, I trust that you will now understand that Weapons of Mass Destruction WERE found in Iraq? Second, Bush is not looking to preserve his presidential legacy. He is not Clinton. He risk re-election, and continues to risk his standing, by persisting with the right course of action.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:52:48 PM)
mnottertail: Just landed here, this is a general condemnation of ill-conceived and reprehensible peeping and muttering in the guise of intelligence. It is not wise to slam yourself and other like minded people. mnottertail: Several other obviously contradictory and flawed reasonings have been proffered. It so far has not been a debate in the real sense of debate, but rather a pedantic and invalid as well as illogical refutation of any stance anyone else may have. Not applicable to what I have presented. My rebuttal to other people’s posts on this thread are based on facts, logical reasoning, and assessments based on experience and research. The other posts that I’ve rebutted, yours included, can’t stand up to logical scrutiny. What’s worse, the people making those points miserably prove their own points, dodge valid points, or ignore them all together. Yet others respond by throwing insults. If anything, that statement is more applicable to you and the others that I’ve debated. mnottertail: There are three branches of government, the EXECUTIVE (carry out: think of it as purely political and self-interested), the legislative and the judiciary.....there is a system of checks and balances that prevents most of the spilling over into other areas. NOTE: You CAN’T carry out the law if you can’t ENFORCE the law. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/enforce quote: ENFORCE 1. to put or keep in force; compel obedience to: to enforce a rule; Traffic laws will be strictly enforced. 2. to obtain by force or compulsion 3. To impose upon a person. … Enforce v 1: ensure observance of laws and rules; "Apply the rules to everyone"; [syn: implement, apply] [ant: exempt] 2: compel to behave in a certain way; "Social relations impose courtesy" [syn: impose] http://bensguide.gpo.gov/9-12/government/national/executive.html quote: The executive branch of the Government is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. When George Washington was president, people recognized that one person could not carry out the duties of the President without advice and assistance. “ENFORCE” and “CARRY OUT” are used interchangeably. The president is the senior law enforcement officer in the land. Not to be confused with being the chief law enforcement officer of the government (as an entity). He is the head of the branch in charge of enforcing the law of the land. The president is ultimately in charge of enforcing the law of the land. Even if we use your argument, when you have the senior most officer in charge of carrying out the laws of the land encouraging others to break laws, we have serious problems. Either way, my point about Clinton’s perjury and obstruction to justice fiasco still stands. quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." note that it does not say enforce. And how does one EXECUTE the office of the President of the Untied States? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_power quote: The executive is the branch of a government charged with implementing, or executing, the law and running the day-to-day affairs of the government or state. The de facto most senior figure in an executive is referred to as the head of government. He is executing his duties as the SENIOR FIGURE in the EXECUTIVE branch. Which is charged with WHAT? That’s right, EXECUTING the LAW and running the day to day affairs of the government. And how does one execute the law of the land? By ENFORCING it. If you can’t enforce it, you could forget about rule of law. mnottertail: I went to school that day and learned this, it was a thursday, they had sloppy joes...........no sloppy joes at your school I see. I went to school everyday I could - unless I a severe flu had other plans. I specifically remember learning this in Junior High School, High School, and COLLEGE. But I was not content with that. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen this on the history channel. And other documentaries surrounding this. And the one thing that kept popping up was the fact that the President is in charge of the branch of government in charge of ENFORCING the law of the land. You can keep your sloppy joes. My school believed that reading comprehension was more important than sloppy joes. mnottertail: The difficulty with refuting everything and anything that is stated (especially when the refutation is terribly incorrect) is that it isn't going to be a long time before you disagree with yourself publicly. WRONG on all counts. 1. There is no difficulty in refuting everything, or most everything stated. I’ve done it with ease for the past three years. 2. My refutation is ACCURATE. I’ve even backed my assessments with facts, figures, and videos. You’ve done nothing to refute what I’ve stated. In fact, you’ve disintegrated into shoot and move tactics instead of even TRYING to prove my points wrong. Other people who’ve tried to do this ended up having their sources dismantled by fact check. The best my opponents could do is attack the messenger while failing to address the facts that my sources presented. 3. My argument against everybody that I’ve debated with have been consistent. People have tried to throw this line of nonsense that I was contradicting myself. In every instance, I was able to prove with my own words and theirs that I was NOT contradicting myself. You see, when people advance the same factually challenged nonsense, the same facts can be used over and over again in rebuttal. mnottertail: Additionally; some of us alive today are extremely glad that we didn't have to 'win' alot of hamburger hills. If you did not have to ‘win’ allot of ‘hamburger hills’, you would have wisely cut your loses and moved on. However, I’ve previously indicated that I live for this type of debate and enjoy doing it. I enjoy debating with people - that have no intentions of agreeing with me - for as long as the debate will last. Not here to win or lose an argument. I am not here to walk away with someone else’s opinions. I am here to debate perpetually in a way that I have fun doing so. Two people with no intentions of agreeing with each other debating. Presenting opposing views for third parties to read. Lets just say that you guys have proven to be the fuel to my ‘fire’. mnottertail: Other than that, I believe that most of the refutations have actually further buttressed my points. Anybody that has any ounce of reading comprehension abilities would see that the vast majority of my counterpoints DESTROY the points that you made. Now, in ‘one or two’ instances, I did buttress you point. For example: quote: mnottertail: Get the fuck outta here....I gotta go into detox, I am missing some serious shiot!!!!!! Nuff said. In this instance, I buttress your pint, the one that I bolded. However, the vast majority of my points exposed the factually challenged nature of your posts. They did not build your case, but exposed the fallacy of your position. mnottertail: The exhibition of the logic and intelligence of a common ice cube is rather unremarkable and considerably tiring. You do realize that - indirectly - you drastically insulted your logic and intelligence capabilities with that comment, do you? That would be like a kid looking up at his dad and accusing him of being tiny.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:54:29 PM)
Amaros: This is the current RNC line, to try to squirm out from under their current embarassment - Actually, it is a “he who is without sin cast the first stone” (or however it is worded) line. This is not squirming out of the current embarrassment. Republicans are lambasting Foley. When we find out that Republicans do things like that, we call for a new republican to take his place. The democrats are not shining examples of morality themselves. Amaros: Personally I could give and order to find bin Laden while getting a blow job, and I'm sure Clinton couldn't have gotten to where he was without being a multitasker. Apparently, his multitasking did not do him any good when it came to the Lewinski (sp) scandal. He failed to keep his eye on the ball while this scandal was being exposed. That is no excuse for him to “continue sleeping at the helm.” The fact that it became an issue in the first place shows that he should never have been president. Amaros: The fact remains, Clinton did put a high priority on neutralizing and tracking bin Laden, tracing the finacial network, etc., the republicans did not, despite repeated warnings - what the fuck were they doing, you have to wonder? … Getting blow jobs from the Saudis, I suspect. First, one fact that you are leaving out is the fact that both Clinton and Bush went after Bin Laden as a result of terrorist attacks. Until 9/11, neither was proactive, just reactive. Bush was just carrying out a policy that has been in place years before he took office. Second, the warnings that we received in Bush’s first 8 months did not amount to specific warnings. The title of the report Rice read stated that Bin Laden intended to attack the U.S. But the body of the report was just a rehash of what Bin Laden had done BEFORE. No specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. The traditional wisdom was that the threats indicated the possibility of a similar type of attack happening again. It does not help that the vast majority of the warnings turn out to be duds. Like the Clinton Administration, they had to figure out which part of the “clutter” was the real thing. For every terror attack carried out, far more turned out to be false alarms. Third, Osama Bin Laden and his attacks on US interests crossed Clinton’s radar in 1994. Two years later, he was reading an intelligence report specifically talking about airplanes being crashed into buildings. He did not get serious about going after Bin Laden until YEARS after he first learned of him and his attacks. Clinton had plenty of opportunities to take out Bin Laden. The impediments that Clinton faced were self imposed. For Bush, when Bin Laden slips OUTSIDE of Afghanistan, there is nothing he could do in Afghanistan itself to capture Bin Laden.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 2:57:35 PM)
trannysub007: i didn't say he said he is never wrong. quote: herfacechair seems to have a deep seated need to be right, and will apparently stop at nothing to be so. Just as the USA cannot win the war in Iraq, one cannot win a debate when one of the people debating is NEVER wrong. See that last red sentence? I read the same thing. You did not directly make that statement, but both the red sentences in the quote clearly indicates where your thoughts were leading. trannysub007: He does, however, tell others that they are wrong, I tell them they are wrong when I know for a fact that they are wrong. trannysub007: using information that might not be any more accurate than the information the 'wrong' person used. There is no “might not be any more accurate” in this. Here, let me demonstrate with one of the information that you claim “might not be any more accurate”: http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleID.18837/article_detail.asp The 9/11 Commission Report indicates that a senior Iraqi intelligence officer met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in late 1994 or early 1995 and that contacts continued after bin Laden relocated in Afghanistan. Iraq harbored senior members of a terrorist network led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaeda associate. CIA Director George Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (in a 10/7/02 letter), “We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade.” Senator Hillary Clinton stated on October 10, 2002 that Saddam “has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members.” The Clinton administration tied Iraq to al-Qaeda back in 1998, arguing that Saddam Hussein had provided technical assistance in the construction of an al-Qaeda chemical plant in Sudan… Is this, or is this not, a factual statement? Just give me a yes or no answer. If you say “yes”, then your statement about my sources is wrong. If you say “no”, you lose credibility. trannysub007: Also, a person's opinion about something is neither right nor wrong. It simply is. He stated on numerous occasions that the other person's opinions were wrong, and posted his own. Most of what I stated is based on facts that I’ve read in books related to the topic and from what I’ve observed. Generating an analysis consistent with the facts found in multiple books read on the subject is NOT opinion. It is an assessment at worse, a fact at best. This is not something where I could either be right or wrong. For example, my statement that our enemies plan to unite the world under the banner of Islam is NOT an opinion. Numerous videos of their speeches support that. It is fact. I will tell someone that they are wrong if the facts that I’ve gathered does not support their statements. I’ve done this numerous times on this and other threads. trannysub007: What I get from that is that he feels his opinions are right. Then you are not getting it. I don’t feel that my ‘opinions’ are right. I KNOW that my assessments are accurate and reflect what is actually happening. You won’t get that just by watching the news. But by reading books and other materials that present facts neglected by most media outlets. I also have also experienced things in my profession that gives me a perspective that the people that I am debating with don’t have. trannysub007: i'm willing to be wrong about this, but he seems to have a need to be right. Well then you are in fact WRONG. There, you’ve heard it from the ‘horse’s’ mouth. I don’t have a need to be right. AGAIN: I’ve previously indicated that I live for this type of debate and enjoy doing it. I enjoy debating with people that have no intentions of agreeing with me for as long as the debate will last. Not here to win or lose an argument. I am not here to walk away with someone else’s opinions. I am here to debate perpetually in a way that I have fun doing so. Two people with no intentions of agreeing with each other debating. Presenting opposing views for third parties to read.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 3:00:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Uh, I just noticed that some text didn't get transferred from the Senate Judicary Document. The part where they said the Attorney General was the highest law enforcement officer in the land. But that is only their opinion. Ron Most books that I’ve read, as well as the professors I’ve had on the topic, has the leader of the executive branch as the highest law enforcement officer of the land. Now for the opinion * drum roll* I have an idea of what you saw. For the sake of upping the fun factor, I am going to withhold my comment until you say what I think you will say.

mnottertail -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 3:37:54 PM)
I stated clearly what I read, and where I read it. as you say, comprehension... or, perhaps 50 million frenchmen can be wrong. LOL, Ron

cloudboy -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 4:20:46 PM)
And here I thought the US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX was weakening, but with Average citizens like you pumping it up alongside the Pentagon wonks, Fat Cat Defense Industry Giants, patriotic news organizations, and the "exagerate the threat" think tanks ---- I can see that a new fleet of Nuclear Subs, B99 Bombers, F-whatever Fighter Jets, smart bombs, bunker busters, and tactical Nukes is just around the corner. This 400 + Billion Dollar United States venture needs your full, complete, and unconditional support to keep going. Whatever you do, don't question anything. It might slow down the expenditures or serve some other horrible interest like, say, balancing our own Federal Budget.

Sinergy -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 6:24:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herfacechair Dorsai: this is a country than thinks reagan was a freaking geneous . . . He was. His policies played a large role in toppling the Soviet Empire. Many people hold him in high esteem in Eastern Europe and Russia because of this. Yes, the Soviet Union might have gone bankrupt from excessive military spending and overreaching it's military fighting in Afghanistan 2 weeks later if it was not for Reagan's policies. There are people in the United States who still hold George W. Bush in high esteem. There is no accounting for taste. So I am not understanding your point about Reagan lovers in Europe. Sinergy

trannysub007 -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/10/2006 9:27:34 PM)
trannysub007: i'm willing to be wrong about this, but he seems to have a need to be right. Well then you are in fact WRONG. There, you’ve heard it from the ‘horse’s’ mouth. I don’t have a need to be right. My experience of your posts is that you have to be right, or maybe it seems to me that you just like to show off how much you read. Perhaps you have nothing better to do. i think GW Bush is an idiot. That's been my experience of him. It's not wrong. Just as your possible experience of him as a great leader gag/cough/suppress urge to vomit is not wrong. It's just how you feel. OK, never mind ... maybe you just like to type and cut-and-paste a lot. i'd rather watch people swim. *note to self - avoid her's posts .. too long-winded and I-know-more-than-you-do. Not worth the time or stress.

UtopianRanger -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 1:48:23 AM)
quote: It was not till the past 5 to 6 centuries that the Western European countries solidified into the countries that we know of today. Economic and security contributed to their integration. We see this even with our own history. The first generation of Americans still identified themselves with their own states rather than to the United States of America. These past few decades saw history repeating itself. Except this time, it is happening on a regional and continental level. Europe with the European Union, North America with NAFTA/CAFTA, South America with the South American Union, Africa with the Africa Union, and Asia with ASEAN + China. Coming down the pike - Free Trade Area of the Americas. Just as in the past, economic and security issues are contributing to these integrations. By the end of this century, Pan America + Australia and New Zealand, Europe, and Asia will be super nations. By the end of next century, we will be globally integrated under one central government. I've participated on these boards for a little over and year and a half....and during this whole time, I've never encountered anyone remotely as brainwashed as you. You mentioned that you are / were a US military officer? You remind me of the type of officer that participated in the Vietnam conflict - That is...the variety who were shot in the back. Personally....I still think you've been lobotomized by a group of dominant women. - R

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 2:51:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I stated clearly what I read, and where I read it. as you say, comprehension... or, perhaps 50 million frenchmen can be wrong. LOL, Ron 1. Though we adopted some of our ideas from the French, we are not in France. 2. We are dealing with the executive’s role given to it by the constitution. 3. I am going to interpret those rules as per Natural Law. Not by how the French define things. Reading comprehension should make it obvious to someone that if the executive branch is in charge of making sure that people obey the laws, and the president is the head of this branch, that he is the senior person in charge of ensuring that people obey these laws. HENCE, he is the senior law enforcement officer of the land.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 2:52:44 PM)
cloudboy: And here I thought the US MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX was weakening, but with Average citizens like you pumping it up alongside the Pentagon wonks, Fat Cat Defense Industry Giants, As opposed to say, the people that I am arguing against, who happen to be PUMPING our enemies up? Let’s put it this way. I am no fan of the military industrial complex. I see a threat, and I see the elements surrounding that threat, I do an analysis, do a projection, and conclude that we have to take specific defense actions. Now, if my assessments would mean that they make money, oh well. That is a necessity. But that is better than the position taken by the people that I am arguing against. I would rather inadvertently “pump up” the military industrial complex than to inadvertently pump up our ENEMIES. Which is precisely what is being done by people who claim that we “can’t” win this war, by the people that are lambasting our Commander in Chief, by the people trashing the name of our service members because of a few malcontents, by the people that claim that the Iraq war is the wrong war, and so on. cloudboy: patriotic news organizations, Giving the news straight, presenting both sides of the issue, reporting what one has seen on the ground in Iraq, does not make a news organization “patriotic”. It makes them an organization that does what it is SUPPOSED to do. Present two sides of the story and give it to the audience straight. cloudboy: and the "exagerate the threat" think tanks ---- http://switch5.castup.net/frames/20041020_MemriTV_Popup/video_480x360.asp?ClipMediaID=60227&ak=null quote: We have ruled the world before And by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again The day will come when we will rule America The day will come when we will rule Britain and the entire world… YES, or NO . . . is THAT an exaggerated threat? Or how about this one: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html quote: (Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you? (1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam. That is one of the things that we must do to stop the threat from Al-Qaeda - per Osamma Bin Laden. These threats are NOT exaggerated. They are REAL. The UK’s busting a terror plot aimed at harming Americans should have been a wake up call to a few that we are dealing with a determined enemy with infinite patience. cloudboy: I can see that a new fleet of Nuclear Subs, B99 Bombers, F-whatever Fighter Jets, smart bombs, bunker busters, and tactical Nukes is just around the corner. Actually, many of these programs are taking cuts in favor of funneling money to efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). If they have not seen cuts, many are seeing a slowdown in progress. This is not about getting more money to the defense industry. This is about NOT losing the will to fight. cloudboy: This 400 + Billion Dollar United States venture needs your full, complete, and unconditional support to keep going. And the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq and elsewhere need YOUR full, complete, and unconditional support to keep hanging on. When common sense dictates for them to surrender. It is people like you that miss the whole forest for a few trees that gives these guys a glimmer of hope that they will succeed. Just imagine how many lives would be saved in the future if people would just wake up and face reality. This guy gets it. And he is not even American . . . http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/europe_thy_name.html quote: ORIGINAL: Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy— because everything is at stake. cloudboy: Whatever you do, don't question anything. FACT: I’ve came up with my own conclusions independent of the government or anybody else. Millions of Americans have came up to their own conclusions independent of each other. If anybody is failing to question things when they should be, it is you and other like minded people. Throughout this thread - and other threads and message boards - I see numerous flaws. Assumptions that are not supported by the facts that I’ve obtained over the years. Take that video tape that I’ve provided to you. I’ve lost count of how many videos I’ve watched that were parallel to his. Look at the people in the crowd. They are not shocked that he is saying what he is saying. When the government says that we are facing a radical group that will not stop until they end our way of life, and I end up seeing many videos like the one that I placed here, questioning the government’s conclusion would be idiotic. That is because these videos, and multiple books written about the terrorists, substantiate the government’s claim that we are facing a fatal threat. cloudboy: It might slow down the expenditures or serve some other horrible interest like, say, balancing our own Federal Budget. War on Terrorism related expenditures can’t be helped. A balanced Budget would not be of any use if the terrorists successfully destroy our economy.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 2:54:00 PM)
Sinergy: Yes, the Soviet Union might have gone bankrupt from excessive military spending and overreaching it's military fighting in Afghanistan 2 weeks later if it was not for Reagan's policies. There is NO “might” about this. Ronald Reagan’s policies contributed tremendously to their collapse. Sinergy: There are people in the United States who still hold George W. Bush in high esteem. There is no accounting for taste. This is not just about taste. It is about people who believe in doing the right thing despite the insistence of others who are in the wrong. One of the reasons people hold George Bush to a high regard is that he is doing the right thing for us. He is willing to look at the whole forest - all the way to the horizon - to see how things are going to be. Then plan for it. The historical significance of what he is doing today is not going to be realized and appreciated until sometime in the future. Sinergy: So I am not understanding your point about Reagan lovers in Europe. The Europeans that were a part of the democracy movement in the former Eastern Block countries. They heard Reagan’s speeches, saw his gaols for them. His message resonated with them. Even former Soviet political prisoners of war would recount stories of when they heard Ronald Reagan’s speeches. The prisoners passed this news to each other. They were grateful that they had an ally in their cause, and that this ally understood the hardship they were going through.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 2:57:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trannysub007 trannysub007: i'm willing to be wrong about this, but he seems to have a need to be right. Well then you are in fact WRONG. There, you’ve heard it from the ‘horse’s’ mouth. I don’t have a need to be right. Does not matter if you say SEEMS, DOES, APPEARS, APPARENTLY, or whatever. You advanced something that was pure ASSUMPTION. An assumption that I’ve subsequently proven wrong. trannysub007: My experience of your posts is that you have to be right, And again, YOU ARE WRONG. In order for me to HAVE to be right, I would actually have a COGNITIVE need for it. In other words, I would have to actually WANT to be RIGHT in order for your assumptions about my having to be right to be true. But I know what my cognitive processes are. I know for a FACT that I DON’T have a NEED to be right. If that is the impression that you are getting from reading my posts, that I have a “need” to be right, then you are exercising piss poor reading comprehension. Here, let me show you someone who has made an ACCURATE assessment of what I was doing… quote: ORIGINAL: swtnsparkling quote: one cannot win a debate when one of the people debating is NEVER wrong. There are an awful lot who post around here- determinded that They are Never Wrong and speak as if they knew all the Facts ( perhaps they were flies on the wall in the oval office or war room and know every detail of every decision that they are only privy too) I dont find Herfacechair saying he is never wrong- I see a person posting info refuting other things said - this for me makes good reading I like seeing what the opinions are from BOTH sides. Do you see the red statement? That is PRECISELY what I’ve set out to do. She is DEAD Accurate in this post when describing my intentions - and what I came across as. You were dead WRONG in describing what I come across as. Both of you saw the same posts. She got it, you didn’t. trannysub007: or maybe it seems to me that you just like to show off how much you read. If knuckleheads will call my knowledge of these matters to question, or persist with their drivel after they’ve been refuted, I will quickly point out some of my sources. Books are one type of source that I use. There are other sources of information as well. trannysub007: Perhaps you have nothing better to do. Wrong. I don’t spend all day reading books. But I do read a few pages at a time. Over a period of months, you could get though several books. My assessments here are based on books and information that I’ve read over these past few years. trannysub007: i think GW Bush is an idiot. That's been my experience of him. It's not wrong. Just as your possible experience of him as a great leader gag/cough/suppress urge to vomit is not wrong. It's just how you feel. I don’t buy this nonsense that two positions on a certain issue are equally correct. Or equally subject to being either right or wrong simply because “that is how the people expressing this feels”. Logically, your own statement is contradictory. Let us break this down. Bush is an idiot = not wrong. (yeah, and the world is flat = not wrong) [8\|] Bush is great = not wrong. The statement that Bush is an ‘idiot’ contradicts the statement that Bush is ‘great’. If one is not wrong, then the other is wrong. If “Bush is an idiot” is not wrong, then “Bush is great” is wrong. If “Bush is an idiot” is wrong, then “Bush is great” is not wrong. What one feels about an issue does not make one “not wrong”. Empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and facts makes one “not wrong”. And it so happens that facts, logical reasoning, and empirical evidence supports Bush’s position. trannysub007: OK, never mind ... maybe you just like to type and cut-and-paste a lot. Congratulations. This is the closest that you’ve came to guessing something about me right. Yes, I do love to type. But I also love to ARGUE. I also love to do other things. However, I cut and paste when I need to use information to back my position. trannysub007: i'd rather watch people swim. That is why you came back to address me, right? However, I also like to swim. I swim two miles at the rec on an almost daily basis.

farglebargle -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 2:58:04 PM)
quote: War on Terrorism related expenditures can’t be helped. A balanced Budget would not be of any use if the terrorists successfully destroy our economy. The chance of Terrorist attack is so small, a rational person discounts it. Less than 3000 deaths in the past 5 years domestically? The PRICE of reacting to it ( and the theory that by REACTING to the terrorists, we LOSE to them... ) is not worth the gains. Or another way. The price of FREEDOM is the risk of other people's Freedom causing you harm. If you're not BRAVE ENOUGH to take the chances of Freedom, you don't deserve it.

herfacechair -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 3:01:40 PM)
UtopianRanger: I've participated on these boards for a little over and year and a half....and during this whole time, I've never encountered anyone remotely as brainwashed as you. The stealth technology that you use to protect your one brain cell from all attacks of reasoning is impressive. You must be the latest model of the latest batch of retards being rushed through the assembly lines. First, one of the arguments that I’ve advanced is that we are winning the war in Iraq. One of the many things that I’ve used to back that point is this: http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.18615/article_detail.asp quote: Contrary to the impression given by most newspaper headlines, the United States has won the day in Iraq. In 2004, our military fought fierce battles in Najaf, Fallujah, and Sadr City. Many thousands of terrorists were killed, with comparatively little collateral damage. As examples of the very hardest sorts of urban combat, these will go down in history as smashing U.S. victories. And our successes at urban combat (which, scandalously, are mostly untold stories in the U.S.) made it crystal clear to both the terrorists and the millions of moderate Iraqis that the insurgents simply cannot win against today’s U.S. Army and Marines. That’s why everyday citizens have surged into politics instead. YES or NO. Is my assessment that we are winning in Iraq a product of brainwashing? If you say ‘YES’, not only do you destroy your credibility, but you will prove to be the one that was brainwashed. For no sane person would look at raw data, see that raw data support a position, and claim that whoever holds that position is brainwashed. If you say ‘NO’, you prove your assumption that I am ‘brainwashed’ wrong. Just give me a YES or NO answer only. Second. Being that I am not a regular poster here, I have the advantage of being the person from the outside looking in. And from what I see, you guys are just like many of the posters on the Protest Warrior forums. Many of you are not that far from each other when it comes to agreeing and disagreeing on certain issues. Yes, there are areas where you guys oppose each other. But you don’t have the benefit of having REAL opposition. Like what I am presenting to you. And when you are presented with real opposition, you and a few others generate posts that are lacking in substance . . . but abundant with childish immaturity. I will give you an example that I’ve observed both on this forum and on the Protest Warrior forum: Very good minority statement posted. Post reply one: You are a loser. Post reply two: You are brainwashed. Post reply three: You are an (fill in the blank) I am not the problem. I represent a segment of Internet debaters that should come here more often. Just you represent a segment of Internet debaters that should post on the Protest Warrior forums more often. UtopianRanger: You mentioned that you are / were a US military officer? Still am an officer. UtopianRanger: You remind me of the type of officer that participated in the Vietnam conflict - That is...the variety who were shot in the back. This statement right here contradicts any claim that you may have made of supporting the troops. Either that, or you are just one of the posters that posts as if he is possessed by a retarded ghost. You see, the vast majority of the officer corps view things very similarly to what I have expressed here. In many cases, are more “extreme” than I am. The vast majority of the senior enlisted personnel have a very similar view to what I’ve expressed here. Granted, there are people in the military who oppose our view, but they form the minority. With those supporting my view forming the majority. By your assessment, the majority of the military are like the officers that got shot by their own men. Some of the assessments that I’ve advanced in this thread are based on what I’ve learned from service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Are you going to accuse them of being “brainwashed” as well? Or is calling people “brainwashed” much easier for you intellectually than actually debating? UtopianRanger: Personally....I still think you've been lobotomized by a group of dominant women. This coming from the person that would still be a halfwit if he had two brains.

farglebargle -> RE: Clinton, Monica and 9/11 (10/11/2006 3:03:57 PM)
I don't see how NO PLAN, NO END IN SIGHT, and 650,000 dead iraqis can be called a Win by anyone but Satan...

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625