Bill Clinton Fires up Democrats at Convention

[Siddhartha]

Clinton is a great public speaker. But lets move past how the speech was delivered and talk about the substance. I think he nailed the differences between where Kerry would lead the US and where Bush has led the country. Up to now, the only information people have about Kerry has come from the republicans and their allies

To paraphrase Clinton:

If you like where Bush and republicans have led the US, vote for them. Do you really want four more years of Bush?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: rchiu
hehe, interesting to see what kinda of people support Kerry and what kinda of people support Bush.

Now on the Bush camp, you got this troll who doesn't understand the difference between a radio jockey trying to make a buck with inflammatory comments, and real political view. (Yeah, I am referring to the troll with Michael Savage in his sig) You got this mod wanna be pretending he is out to bring some order, but only attacks people from the other side. And you got people here and there with the intelligence to write one line comment with nothing to back it up.

On the Kerry camp, you got people who can actually write some thoughtful and intelligent post.

Just like the convention tonight, you got a nobel peace prize winner, and intelligent strong lady senator from New York, and an ex-president who left the country in much better shape then when he first came into the White House. You got a President candidate who fought in a war instead of running away from it. You got a vice President candidate who actually fought for the average Joe against the big corp, instead of the other way around.

I dunno......I think the democrates is better represented this year.

:beer:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Clinton is a great public speaker. But lets move past how the speech was delivered and talk about the substance. I think he nailed the differences between where Kerry would lead the US and where Bush has led the country. Up to now, the only information people have about Kerry has come from the republicans and their allies

To paraphrase Clinton:

If you like where Bush and republicans have led the US, vote for them. Do you really want four more years of Bush?

Dick Morris picked up on the key aspect of Clinton's speech:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28228.htm

THE master returned to center stage last night as Bill Clinton showed how to address a convention and use issues to win elections.
Facing a national consensus that terror, Iraq and homeland security are the key issues, Bill Clinton dragged America back to the domestic issues on which Democrats retain a strong edge. Long after Clinton's recitation of his own achievements has faded, his effort to reinject health care, Social Security, Medicare, drug prices, education and crime into the national debate may endure.

By reminding voters how much they would support the Democratic agenda were it not for Bush's strong stance in fighting the War on Terror, he opens the door for a major shift of national issues to those on which Kerry has a clear edge.

Can John Kerry walk through the door that Bill Clinton has opened? Will he realize that he can't win on terrorism and focus on the domestic agenda on which Democrats can win?

By framing the issues as he did, Clinton articulated the differences between Democrats and Republicans without bashing Bush by name. By avoiding the four-letter word B-U-S-H and speaking instead of party positioning on key issues, he avoided the backlash that comes against any candidate who spends his convention time bashing his opponent. But, at the same time, he attacked Bush all the same by articulating the opposition in programmatic and partisan, rather than personal terms.

How odd that it took Clinton, the draft dodger, to make the case for Kerry the war hero. By speaking of "sailing the ship," Clinton has given Kerry a metaphor he can use for the rest of the campaign.

But one other four-letter word was almost entirely absent: I-R-A-Q. Clinton raised the possibility that a Democrat can again win not just by maximizing the domestic issues that dominated our attention before 9/11, but also by minimizing the war we are now in. Rallying his constituency and his program once again, he worked to roll back the clock to the simpler times in which we once lived.

But there is still a reality out there. Al Qaeda will be heard in this election. The date is not Sept. 10, 2001. The War on Terror is unavoidable. It will intrude into this contest and remind us of why we need Bush.

But for one night, in the thrall of the master's voice, we recognize the beat of the drummer to which we once marched.

And what of the contrast between Bill's speech and Hillary's introduction? How could one witness the modulated, varied, emotional delivery of the former president and not realize that the would-be president's delivery was flat, shrill and one-dimensional? The now brown-eyed lady from New York couldn't stand on the same platform with her husband.

It will be a bit tricky for Kerry to focus again on domestic issues w/o ignoring national security and the fight against terrorism. But, I feel Kerry/Edwards can do it. Four more years of pure Republican control will turn the country's checkbook into ashes, maybe a few cities if we keep unjustly invading oil-rich Arab nations.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne

Originally posted by: rchiu
hehe, interesting to see what kinda of people support Kerry and what kinda of people support Bush.

Now on the Bush camp, you got this troll who doesn't understand the difference between a radio jockey trying to make a buck with inflammatory comments, and real political view. (Yeah, I am referring to the troll with Michael Savage in his sig) You got this mod wanna be pretending he is out to bring some order, but only attacks people from the other side. And you got people here and there with the intelligence to write one line comment with nothing to back it up.

On the Kerry camp, you got people who can actually write some thoughtful and intelligent post.

Just like the convention tonight, you got a nobel peace prize winner, and intelligent strong lady senator from New York, and an ex-president who left the country in much better shape then when he first came into the White House. You got a President candidate who fought in a war instead of running away from it. You got a vice President candidate who actually fought for the average Joe against the big corp, instead of the other way around.

I dunno......I think the democrates is better represented this year.

:beer:

Excellent summary.

Oh and judging by the NeoCon remarks in here the Title should be changed to "Bill Clinton Fires up Republicans not at Convention" :thumbsup:

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
Clinton is a great public speaker. But lets move past how the speech was delivered and talk about the substance. I think he nailed the differences between where Kerry would lead the US and where Bush has led the country. Up to now, the only information people have about Kerry has come from the republicans and their allies

To paraphrase Clinton:

If you like where Bush and republicans have led the US, vote for them. Do you really want four more years of Bush?

Dick Morris picked up on the key aspect of Clinton's speech:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/28228.htm

THE master returned to center stage last night as Bill Clinton showed how to address a convention and use issues to win elections.
Facing a national consensus that terror, Iraq and homeland security are the key issues, Bill Clinton dragged America back to the domestic issues on which Democrats retain a strong edge. Long after Clinton's recitation of his own achievements has faded, his effort to reinject health care, Social Security, Medicare, drug prices, education and crime into the national debate may endure.

By reminding voters how much they would support the Democratic agenda were it not for Bush's strong stance in fighting the War on Terror, he opens the door for a major shift of national issues to those on which Kerry has a clear edge.

Can John Kerry walk through the door that Bill Clinton has opened? Will he realize that he can't win on terrorism and focus on the domestic agenda on which Democrats can win?

By framing the issues as he did, Clinton articulated the differences between Democrats and Republicans without bashing Bush by name. By avoiding the four-letter word B-U-S-H and speaking instead of party positioning on key issues, he avoided the backlash that comes against any candidate who spends his convention time bashing his opponent. But, at the same time, he attacked Bush all the same by articulating the opposition in programmatic and partisan, rather than personal terms.

How odd that it took Clinton, the draft dodger, to make the case for Kerry the war hero. By speaking of "sailing the ship," Clinton has given Kerry a metaphor he can use for the rest of the campaign.

But one other four-letter word was almost entirely absent: I-R-A-Q. Clinton raised the possibility that a Democrat can again win not just by maximizing the domestic issues that dominated our attention before 9/11, but also by minimizing the war we are now in. Rallying his constituency and his program once again, he worked to roll back the clock to the simpler times in which we once lived.

But there is still a reality out there. Al Qaeda will be heard in this election. The date is not Sept. 10, 2001. The War on Terror is unavoidable. It will intrude into this contest and remind us of why we need Bush.

But for one night, in the thrall of the master's voice, we recognize the beat of the drummer to which we once marched.

And what of the contrast between Bill's speech and Hillary's introduction? How could one witness the modulated, varied, emotional delivery of the former president and not realize that the would-be president's delivery was flat, shrill and one-dimensional? The now brown-eyed lady from New York couldn't stand on the same platform with her husband.

It will be a bit tricky for Kerry to focus again on domestic issues w/o ignoring national security and the fight against terrorism. But, I feel Kerry/Edwards can do it. Four more years of pure Republican control will turn the country's checkbook into ashes, maybe a few cities if we keep unjustly invading oil-rich Arab nations.

Carter did the same thing with contrasting Bush's and Kerry's foreign polices. I can not remember when political convention speeches so effectively framed the issues in a presidential election.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Does what you say change what you did? Does you trying to turn the tables and refocus the spotlight on me somehow absolve you of what I pointed out?
NO, No it doesn't
You can sit there and claim what you wish but you knew better and did it anyway, no amount of obfuscation/diversion changes the fact you broke the rules.

CkG

I broke the rules? Stop the presses! The same rules broken by 40 plus posters this very day, the one broken by five or six posters in this very thread?

Spare me your BS drama queen faux outrage, CAD, your selective phony outrage game has been exposed for the cynical political tactic that it is. You hide behind the "rules" like some frustrated librarian, hall monitor or rent-a-cop -- all badge and blather but no gun -- it's your fundamentally phony and essentially cowardly way of getting your digs in.

Your true concern for the sanctity of these rules is starkly underscored by the fact that you have never once shown the integrity to speak out against transgressions thereof by someone you politically agree with. Your faux conern is really a manipulative tactic -- cover under which you feel safe to attack those you don't like.

Willan is an unseasoned "troll in the making" just beginning to pollute P&N with his ill considered idiocy and needs and deserves some corrective smackdowns. Maybe he'll calm down, but meanwhile, someone has to point out he's spitting in the soup, farting in a small room, and acting the fool.

I did the same with Infohawk, the leftist "logical fallacy" guy, when he first started, and he finally turned into quite a positively contributing poster. I told him in a pm at the time that he was bright but coming on way too strong and a month later he pm'ed me back to thank me and say I was exactly right.

And you're right, you're not a moderator, so why don't you leave the job of moderation to them. Speaking of the Mods, apparently they TOO are on to your phony act, as shown by their sharp response to the totally dishonest pose you took here:

Yeah, I stocked up for this exact occasion. I figured Perknose forgot about that little thread but it wasn't my fight - it was Crimson's. I have no real issues with Perknose(except for one we can't talk about ) but I do feel he stepped over the line with his tirade against Crimson. As for the link that showed where Perknose basically was calling me a troll - I just chalk that up to having a bad day and him getting offended for something that was actually a compliment and a sign of trust. Oh well...

CkG

"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three.

I really enjoy it when CAD hooks the collar onto the ring in your nose and pulls you into the swill that you create. :thumbsup:

Is there anything in your life that you are able to compete in honestly? Not a dig, just curious? Just trying to understand what a lot of conservative posters regard as flaws in your character.


Oh, and willian apologized for his personal attack,,,,err,,,, and being the elite liberal that you are
I would guess that you will reciprocate, no??

BTW, I will agree that Clinton can speechify, but that is about all that he can do. That is why I won't be voting for him. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[dmcowen674]

"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three."

I said in an earleir post that I feel sorry for Hannity after this Election, I should add that I feel for the Mods here, looks like they are getting quite a work out. :thumbsdown:

But they will perservere I'm sure :thumbsup:

 

[1cito]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack
it was a very "good" speech that gave the illusion of being centrist while at the same time reinforcing the common democratic mantra of their opposition...not surprising but I was less than impressed with Hillary's speech than Bill's...on a side note I found it somewhat interesting that the most they gave each other on stage was a short hug that appeared to be very business. I think his references to the state of affairs upon his departure were a little far fetched given the IT crash shortly there after, also Hillary's inclusion of peace and prosperity during his eight year term, guess the forgot about Kosavo and or Bosnia...

all in all though it was a good speech for the party that did a wonderful job of putting the spotlight on Kerry, still not as centrist as I thought it would be, but not as partisan as years past. Hopefully for Kerry's sake he can have as much or more of an impact when his turn comes later in the week.

OMG, almost an admission of being wrong from Brainwashed NeoCons, wow. Not quite, but certainly the door cracked open.

"guess the forgot about Kosavo and or Bosnia..."

:roll:

That's the best Repugs can do, so pathetic, so sad.

"Hillary's inclusion prosperity during his eight year term"

Do all the NeoCons consider the 8 Year Term of Bill Clinton to be a Depression Era???

Big D, you are more of a spinner than my last Asian girlfriend.

Clinton delivered a home run speech last night. I thought he appealed to a wide range of voters, especially the undecided. His speech might have been too good. The stage is set for Kerry to step up to the plate and knock one out (which I don?t think he has in him).

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: Yzzim


I'm not usually in these debates, but 9/11 would have happened no matter who was President.

Remember, the World Trade Center bombing happened under Clinton back in February of 1993. If everything would have worked according to plan the towers would have been brought down and everyone would say "Remember 2/23" and the left would be saying how it was Bush Sr's fault while the right would be saying it happened under Clinton's term.

ANYWAY...........Clinton is an excellent speaker. My parents told me in the past how they felt comforted when Reagan gave his speeches and I think I now understand what they meant...I felt the same when when Clinton was speaking tonight.

As far as who I'm voting for, I'm not sure. Going to wait for some head to head debates before I decide that.

Actually, neither Clinton nor anyone on the left blamed the 93 bombing on Bush.
And Clinton had only been in office for 5 weeks

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: daveshel
Actully he could. He is prohibited by constitutional amandment from serving more that two consecutive terms. Party wisdom has historicaly dodged this particular bullet.

But, yes, great speech. I especially likes the jab about strength and wisdom.

wouldn't also his impeachment for lying under oath prevent him from serving yet again?

Who died because of his Lie about getting some extra under the Oval Office Desk other than swimmers?

Who died because of his Lie about WMD???

No comparision, absolutely none. Repugs should be more than ashamed of themselves.

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

Are you claiming Clinton's cruise missile attacks on aspirin factories didn't kill any Iraqi's?

Seems like there is a comparison. We lost many servicemen and women under Clinton's policies as well..

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Crimson

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

Are you claiming Clinton's cruise missile attacks on aspirin factories didn't kill any Iraqi's?

Seems like there is a comparison. We lost many servicemen and women under Clinton's policies as well..

Could've , should've , would've's pale in comparison to what we know of the misdoings of the Fearless Liar of the past 4 years.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three."

I said in an earleir post that I feel sorry for Hannity after this Election, I should add that I feel for the Mods here, looks like they are getting quite a work out. :thumbsdown:

But they will perservere I'm sure :thumbsup:

if anything Hannity will fare far better should Kerry win as it gives him a new person to attack, if Clinton made his career Kerry can only further it.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

9/11 was not Bush's fault, and I don't hold anything against him for it. Nobody expected an attack on our soil of this magnitude. My gripes are with the Iraq war, and how Bush has handled foreign affairs post 9/11.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Who died because of his Lie about getting some extra under the Oval Office Desk other than swimmers?

Who died because of his Lie about WMD???

No comparision, absolutely none. Repugs should be more than ashamed of themselves.

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

Are you claiming Clinton's cruise missile attacks on aspirin factories didn't kill any Iraqi's?

Seems like there is a comparison. We lost many servicemen and women under Clinton's policies as well..

LOL!!

Crimson's argument is SO lame! SO without ANY merit!

LMAO!!

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Tiles2Tech

Originally posted by: Willian

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Willian

Originally posted by: bossanov
This is why he is the master.

B.

OH MY GOD IM GOING TO PUKE......LOL We should thank him for 9/11 while we're at it!

9/11 happened under bush, not clinton.

It was the Clinton administrations fault it happened in the 1st place. Clinton is nothing but a joke and all you sheeple believe in his lies. He ruined this country and did nothing but reap the benefits of the Reagan years, Are you people this stupid? w0w!

Thank you for being the voice of reality. :beer::beer::beer::beer:

maybe reality on the planet fantasy land.

it was reagan that did nothing when hundreds of our troops were bombed to death by terrorists. it was reagan that stooped to negotiating with terrorists and then lying about it.

that being said, clinton was president during the first trade tower bombing. he had been in office less time then when 9/11 happened to bush. but unlike bush jr, he did not have a previous administration warning him of such terror, no richard clarke practically blowing gaskets. even so, ask yourself this, what happened to the bombers and organizers? ah yes, ramzi yousef, abdul hakim murad, wali khan amin shah are in jail thanks to clinton not to mention it was under clintons admin that the anti terror budgets and agencies started to grow, fbi counterterror budget doubled, it was under clinton that national stockpiles of drugs and vaccines including 40mil doses of smallpox vax were created. all progress halted when bush stepped into office. where is osama? running around somewhere bush was warned by the clinton administration, yet he thought they were just simply nuts and so ignored it. he admitted it himself in interviews. his actions also told the same story, he didn't retaliate for the cole incident they were so huffy about, no... instead he took a long series of vacations and set about promoting his tax cuts for the wealthy. he was asleep at the wheel when 9/11 happened. don't forget, it was sept 10th when his administration decided to cut anti terror funding. oops? and don't even buy into the admins excuse that they were tired of "swatting flies". what flies did they swat to get so tired? didn't even try once. too busy on the ranch choking on the pretzels.

republicans talk tough, but its only to hide their inadequacy. strong on military? oh wait, where were u mr bush and cheney when the country called its citizens to arms? oh? 5 deferments, awol and abuse of fathers power to stay in texas while having another man sent in your place? it was kerry that volunteered? how odd? strong on terrorism? oh wait, what did u do before 9/11? oh, u were tired of swatting those flies u never tried to swat?

where are those wmds? probably destroyed by clinton during the surprise missions of operation desert fox, over 600sorties, with 325cruise missle strikes alone striking production and military facilities. and what did the repubs do while clinton fought to protect us? yes, obsess over a blow job.

values my friend.. republicans are all about values

KHOBAR TOWERS
USS COLE
EMBASSY BOMBINGS

Look them up! All under CLINTON. What did he do? NOTHING! Hell Louis Freeh had to call on former President Bush to help him get to Saudi to further investigate the Khobar Towers bombing. Clinton did NOTHING. You want to place blame, start there!

 

[Cobalt]

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: daveshel
Actully he could. He is prohibited by constitutional amandment from serving more that two consecutive terms. Party wisdom has historicaly dodged this particular bullet.

But, yes, great speech. I especially likes the jab about strength and wisdom.

wouldn't also his impeachment for lying under oath prevent him from serving yet again?

Who died because of his Lie about getting some extra under the Oval Office Desk other than swimmers?

Who died because of his Lie about WMD???

No comparision, absolutely none. Repugs should be more than ashamed of themselves.

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

And I'm sure Bush's many vacations didn't waste time, when we are actually in need of a leader, I mean we are at war after all?

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: cobalt

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: daveshel
Actully he could. He is prohibited by constitutional amandment from serving more that two consecutive terms. Party wisdom has historicaly dodged this particular bullet.

But, yes, great speech. I especially likes the jab about strength and wisdom.

wouldn't also his impeachment for lying under oath prevent him from serving yet again?

Who died because of his Lie about getting some extra under the Oval Office Desk other than swimmers?

Who died because of his Lie about WMD???

No comparision, absolutely none. Repugs should be more than ashamed of themselves.

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

And I'm sure Bush's many vacations didn't waste time, when we are actually in need of a leader, I mean we are at war after all?

Sure glad Clinton never took vacations. Oh wait...... I think it was during his time in office I heard about that damn Martha's Vineyard time and time again! Hmmm.......

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: MoFunk
KHOBAR TOWERS
USS COLE
EMBASSY BOMBINGS

Look them up! All under CLINTON. What did he do? NOTHING! Hell Louis Freeh had to call on former President Bush to help him get to Saudi to further investigate the Khobar Towers bombing. Clinton did NOTHING. You want to place blame, start there!

KHOBAR TOWERS
Investigation was handled by the Air Force and some higher-ups resigned. Air Force modified its procedures for protecting its bases. The investigation into this Iran-sponsored attack by Hezbollah was obstructed by the Saudis (hmm...Bush's friends...wonder why? Did they want Clinton to look bad to make Bush more electable in 2000? Or was it merely they feared a U.S. retaliatory strike against Iran which would cause more unrest within Saudi Arabia?)

EMBASSY BOMBINGS
Culprits are behind bars.

Clinton ordered bin Laden captured or killed. The CIA didn't go into Afghanistan as they didn't have enough intelligence nor people on the ground.

USS COLE
On Jan. 25, 2001, Richard Clarke recommended that attacks on Al Qaeda be carried out in response to the USS Cole bombing. The Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda was behind that attack on Jan. 27, 2001.

Who was in office? Bush.
Who said too much time had passed? Rumsfeld.



What about:

BEIRUT
Reagan did NOTHING to respond to the 241 U.S. Marines killed by Hezbollah.

TWA 847
What did Reagan do to respond to the murder of a U.S. Navy diver aboard that plane, hijacked by Hezbollah?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose
Are you consistent in your oppostition to personal attacks? I have never seen you express even the slightest outrage at any of the many personal attacks carried out here by posters whose political views you agree with. Not once, not ever. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Your studiously selective outrage does not seem to be based on principle, CAD. It seems to be more tactical -- it seems to be your less straightforward, subtly sideways, and less forthright way of attacking those you don't like.

Does what you say change what you did? Does you trying to turn the tables and refocus the spotlight on me somehow absolve you of what I pointed out?
NO, No it doesn't
You can sit there and claim what you wish but you knew better and did it anyway, no amount of obfuscation/diversion changes the fact you broke the rules.

CkG

I broke the rules? Stop the presses! The same rules broken by 40 plus posters this very day, the one broken by five or six posters in this very thread?

Spare me your BS drama queen faux outrage, CAD, your selective phony outrage game has been exposed for the cynical political tactic that it is. You hide behind the "rules" like some frustrated librarian, hall monitor or rent-a-cop -- all badge and blather but no gun -- it's your fundamentally phony and essentially cowardly way of getting your digs in.

Your true concern for the sanctity of these rules is starkly underscored by the fact that you have never once shown the integrity to speak out against transgressions thereof by someone you politically agree with. Your faux conern is really a manipulative tactic -- cover under which you feel safe to attack those you don't like.

Willan is an unseasoned "troll in the making" just beginning to pollute P&N with his ill considered idiocy and needs and deserves some corrective smackdowns. Maybe he'll calm down, but meanwhile, someone has to point out he's spitting in the soup, farting in a small room, and acting the fool.

I did the same with Infohawk, the leftist "logical fallacy" guy, when he first started, and he finally turned into quite a positively contributing poster. I told him in a pm at the time that he was bright but coming on way too strong and a month later he pm'ed me back to thank me and say I was exactly right.

And you're right, you're not a moderator, so why don't you leave the job of moderation to them. Speaking of the Mods, apparently they TOO are on to your phony act, as shown by their sharp response to the totally dishonest pose you took here:

Yeah, I stocked up for this exact occasion. I figured Perknose forgot about that little thread but it wasn't my fight - it was Crimson's. I have no real issues with Perknose(except for one we can't talk about ) but I do feel he stepped over the line with his tirade against Crimson. As for the link that showed where Perknose basically was calling me a troll - I just chalk that up to having a bad day and him getting offended for something that was actually a compliment and a sign of trust. Oh well...

CkG

"Not your fight"? "No real issues with Perknose"? Your FIVE loooooong, insistent pm's to us urging Perknose's banning hint otherwise. Heck, Crimson only sent us three.

Umm hello!!!! YOU BROKE THE RULES. I don't give a rats ass if you claim 40 other people do it everyday - does that change what you did? Is there some reasons others are dealt with but you again seem to go untouched? I know why - should I tell everyone else? Didn't think so...

As for that MOD who took the opportunity of that other thread to misrepresent what the discussion was about - should I also post what the MODs have said and replied with during our many discussions? Yeah - for some reason I don't think they'd like that too much - just as I don't appreciate them posting something that misrepresents my objective - the objective which should be abundantly clear to them. It was NOT about banning Perknose - it was about how things are handled and they know it. Should I post the PMs and the replies I got so people can see them Perk? You think the MODs would condone that? Would people like to see that I in no way asked for them to "ban" Perk? Would people like to see exactly what the point of my PMs over that other situation was? It's one word...and no- that word is not "ban", "vacation", or anything of that sort. I'm sure the MODs will let me know if I can post the PMs where I supposedly asked for perknose's "banning"(MODs words).

Now for any of you who still want to bleat about me supposedly not pointing out others who happen to be on "my side" - I ask - do you do the same? I don't see you going around telling your side publically yet you sit here trying to condemn me for not doing it so as to divert or obfuscate the issue of a rule breakage. And again, I have on occasion told people to settle down or watch what they are doing and how they are doing it. Both PM, email, IM and a couple publically here.

Pffftttt:roll: sometimes I wonder why I even attempt to use logic with some people...maybe I'm just too optomistic and think everyone will eventually catch on....guess not.

Anyway - just because we are tossing links with quotes around...
"As for your assertion that I have EVER dissed CAD as a troll, I HAVE NOT ever done so, simply because CAD isn't a troll. We'll never be best buddies, but CAD has my respect, which he has earned."
Oh really? Hmmmm.....

Again, I'll gladly post my PM exchanges with the Mods over this - all I need is their "permission". Now back to the issue

CkG

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: MoFunk
KHOBAR TOWERS
USS COLE
EMBASSY BOMBINGS

Look them up! All under CLINTON. What did he do? NOTHING! Hell Louis Freeh had to call on former President Bush to help him get to Saudi to further investigate the Khobar Towers bombing. Clinton did NOTHING. You want to place blame, start there!

KHOBAR TOWERS
Investigation was handled by the Air Force and some higher-ups resigned. Air Force modified its procedures for protecting its bases. The investigation into this Iran-sponsored attack by Hezbollah was obstructed by the Saudis (hmm...Bush's friends...wonder why? Did they want Clinton to look bad to make Bush more electable in 2000? Or was it merely they feared a U.S. retaliatory strike against Iran which would cause more unrest within Saudi Arabia?)

EMBASSY BOMBINGS
Culprits are behind bars.

Clinton ordered bin Laden captured or killed. The CIA didn't go into Afghanistan as they didn't have enough intelligence nor people on the ground.

USS COLE
On Jan. 25, 2001, Richard Clarke recommended that attacks on Al Qaeda be carried out in response to the USS Cole bombing. The Washington Post reported that Al Qaeda was behind that attack on Jan. 27, 2001.

Who was in office? Bush.
Who said too much time had passed? Rumsfeld.



What about:

BEIRUT
Reagan did NOTHING to respond to the 241 U.S. Marines killed by Hezbollah.

TWA 847
What did Reagan do to respond to the murder of a U.S. Navy diver aboard that plane, hijacked by Hezbollah?

"well....i negotiated with terrorists"

no kidding. we found out who was responsible for USS cole when bush was in office. so after bush and the repubs had been so righteously upset over it during the election how did he decide to avenge our fallen brothers? vacations and jabber of tax cuts of course.

look it up indeed

the repubs got all huffy about the cole, and still do, talk about ignorance. and frankly u and the repubs just know you can't honestly make a case for him being strong on defence when clinton did far more.

 

[MoFunk]

Originally posted by: conjur
KHOBAR TOWERS
Investigation was handled by the Air Force and some higher-ups resigned. Air Force modified its procedures for protecting its bases. The investigation into this Iran-sponsored attack by Hezbollah was obstructed by the Saudis (hmm...Bush's friends...wonder why? Did they want Clinton to look bad to make Bush more electable in 2000? Or was it merely they feared a U.S. retaliatory strike against Iran which would cause more unrest within Saudi Arabia?)

http://www.democratherald.com/articles/2003/05/21/news/opinion/edit01.txt
Louis Freeh, the former director of the FBI, brought it up Tuesday in a long article on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. First, he recounts the history of Iran's support for attacks against Americans by Hezbollah, "the exclusive terrorist agent of the Islamic Republic of Iran." Then, he recalls, "on June 25, 1996, Iran again attacked America at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, exploding a huge truck bomb that devastated Khobar Towers and murdered 19 U.S. airmen as they rested in their dormitory."

The airmen had been enforcing the southern no-fly zone of Iraq. The attack that killed them also wounded 400 other U.S. Air Force men and women.

Freeh recounts the FBI's investigation of this attack, an investigation in which he says the Clinton administration was decidedly unhelpful.

"Over the course of our investigation," he writes, "the evidence became clear that while the attack was staged by Saudi Hezbollah members, the entire operation was planned, funded and coordinated by Iran's security services, the IRGC and MOIS, acting on orders from the highest levels of the regime in Tehran."

Freeh writes that the Justice Department declined to proceed with the investigation, but when the Bush administration took over, evidence was presented to a grand jury, and 13 Hezbollah terrorists were indicted. The grand jury also identified Iran as the sponsor.

 

[jeffg9]

As opposed to conservatives who try to force their beliefs on others.

Most wars and fights are due to trying to prove their all powerful invisible friend is better than yours.

 

[Crimson]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Crimson

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Who died because of his Lie about getting some extra under the Oval Office Desk other than swimmers?

Who died because of his Lie about WMD???

No comparision, absolutely none. Repugs should be more than ashamed of themselves.

3000 Americans may have died needlessly if he ignored security warnings because he was getting 'busy in the oval office.. Not saying it WOULD have been prevented, but I'm sure he could have spent his time more 'productively'.

Are you claiming Clinton's cruise missile attacks on aspirin factories didn't kill any Iraqi's?

Seems like there is a comparison. We lost many servicemen and women under Clinton's policies as well..

LOL!!

Crimson's argument is SO lame! SO without ANY merit!

LMAO!!

LOL!!

Conjur once again fails to refute anything I say..

LMAO!!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: conjur
What about:

BEIRUT
Reagan did NOTHING to respond to the 241 U.S. Marines killed by Hezbollah.

TWA 847
What did Reagan do to respond to the murder of a U.S. Navy diver aboard that plane, hijacked by Hezbollah?

Regan?? talk about taking a trip in the way back machine...so what conjur, you don't care about the actions of people 30 years ago, but 20 + years ago is fair game???...nice

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Again, I'll gladly post my PM exchanges with the Mods over this - all I need is their "permission". Now back to the issue
CkG

Yes, please post your "exchanges" with the mods and prove that you're as "unbiased" as you claim you are in enforcing the rules around here. Otherwise, just let the mods do their jobs and lock threads and dole out vacations as they deem necessary. You don't see me bitching about their decisions...