patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

Your the one pumping Arab propaganda...

As I stated, the picture was the very first Google Image search result for "drone strikes kill children", is labeled as such, and appeared on a website about the deaths of children by drones. Furthermore -- and I don't know why I have to repeat this to even an idiot like you -- my case that US drone strikes have killed many children is not dependent on that picture as it is supported by a plethora of evidence, none of which you have the balls to even attempt to refute.

So to accuse me of "pumping Arab propaganda" is an outlandish lie that illustrates just how weak your position is.

thomaswong.1986 says

I know where my allegiance belongs.

Yes, but not to the truth or America. Your allegiance is to the Republican party even when it deliberately sabotages America like it has for the entire Obama administration.

You lie about what Democrats do -- which is stupid because there is more than enough real things to complain about Democrats -- and then you lie about the evils that Republicans do.

But here's your chance to show a little bit of rationality. Name ten terrible things about G.W. Bush's presidency. If you can't do that, then you are a worthless partisan shill.

thomaswong.1986 says

from the so called Clinton's great presidential term so said ... Dan

Bill Clinton: Clear Evidence of Iraqi WMD Program

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=S0f5u_0ytUs

Wow, that video came from 1998, three years before Bush claimed Saddam had WMD and the UN thoroughly disproved that claim repeatedly. I guess that means that Clinton stopped Saddam from getting WMDs without even going to war. You're point is well-made, Clinton was far better than I gave him credit for.

I particularly like the part where Clinton, in his wisdom, said @ 1:45,

But there is no better example, again I say, than the U.N. weapons inspection system itself. Yes, he has tried to thwart it in every conceivable way, but the discipline, determination, year-in-year-out effort of these weapons inspectors is doing the job. And we seek to finish the job.

I also like the part that went

But Saddam Hussein could end this crisis tomorrow simply by letting the weapons inspectors complete their mission. He made a solemn commitment to the international community to do that and to give up his weapons of mass destruction a long time ago now. One way or the other, we are determined to see that he makes good on his own promise.

And, of course, those of us who listen to history rather than trying to rewrite it, will remember that Saddam did not interfere with the U.N. inspectors and that every one of those inspectors said there was no evidence of WMDs in 2001. Oh yeah, and as the Manning Memo shows, Bush planned to invade Iraq regardless of WMDs and, in fact, was pushing for war before the U.N. could say they looked every possible place for WMDs and found none.

Once again, Clinton solves a problem, and Bush created another.

Dan8267 says

But here's your chance to show a little bit of rationality.

you want show... here it is..

you can GO AND BURN IN HELL

along with your Arab terrorist friends and cronies.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/debunking-8-anti-war-myths-about-the-conflict-in-iraq/

here’s a quote from the 800 pound gorilla of the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, that was made on Oct 8, 2002:

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

http://www.rightwingnews.com/column-2/debunking-8-anti-war-myths-about-the-conflict-in-iraq/

Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism. It’s amazing to me that today in 2005, people are still trotting out that oft-disproven quip. Christopher Hitchens was also apparently surprised when Ron Reagan, Jr. made a similar assertion recently and you may find his response to be most enlightening:

“CH: Do you know nothing about the subject at all? Do you wonder how Mr. Zarqawi got there under the rule of Saddam Hussein? Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal?RR: Well, I’m following the lead of the 9/11 Commission, which…

CH: Have you ever heard of Abu Nidal, the most wanted man in the world, who was sheltered in Baghdad? The man who pushed Leon Klinghoffer off the boat, was sheltered by Saddam Hussein. The man who blew up the World Trade Center in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam Hussein, and you have the nerve to say that terrorism is caused by resisting it? And by deposing governments that endorse it? … At this stage, after what happened in London yesterday?…

RR: Zarqawi is not an envoy of Saddam Hussein, either.

CH: Excuse me. When I went to interview Abu Nidal, then the most wanted terrorist in the world, in Baghdad, he was operating out of an Iraqi government office. He was an arm of the Iraqi State, while being the most wanted man in the world. The same is true of the shelter and safe house offered by the Iraqi government, to the murderers of Leon Klinghoffer, and to Mr. Yassin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. How can you know so little about this, and be occupying a chair at the time that you do?”

Mr. Hitchens is entirely correct. Saddam provided “safe haven” for terrorists with “global reach.” Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yassin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, “Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over…Scotland,”Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer,” & “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan” who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda’s forces in Iraq.

Without question, Saddam Hussein had extensive ties to terrorism.

thomaswong.1986 says

Dan8267 says

But here's your chance to show a little bit of rationality.

you want show... here it is..

you can GO AND BURN IN HELL

along with your Arab terrorist friends and cronies.

Ah, a perfect demonstration of your maturity level and capacity for rational discourse. I couldn't have made a better argument against your position or against you as a human being than your own post does.

As for me being cronies with Arab terrorists, laugable as that is, it is impossible to rectify that accusation with the statements I made about Arab culture a mere six months ago on this very site, when I compared Western culture to Arabic culture

By the way, there is a correct answer to my question. The correct answer is

Hell NO! Of course we shouldn't respect a cultural or religious belief that girls and women should be murdered for being too westernized, i.e., independent. Some cultures are superior to others. A culture that respects the equality of people regardless of gender is superior to a culture that stones women when the men feel they are getting too independent.

To refresh everyone's memory, I was stating that Western culture is far superior to Arab culture and that we should not respect a culture that practices honour killings. Political correctness has no place when human lives and human rights are on the line.

Of course, I can't exactly be an Arabic terrorist propagandist if I am outspoken against the atrocities in Arabic culture and when I say that our culture is objectively superior. That completely blows away little Tommy boy's theory that I'm in cohouts with the "Arab terrorists" as he calls them. But when does reality every get in the way of thomaswong's writings.

thomaswong.1986 says

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq

Another Straw Man argument. No one is saying Saddam was a good guy. But the fact is that Bush didn't start a war for the sake of rescuing the people of Iraq -- one million of whom Bush killed in this war -- from Saddam. Bush's intentions were evil. He wanted oil. And intentions matter. They matter shitloads when it comes to war.

One cannot serve two masters. One cannot server the cause of freedom and greed. They are mutually exclusive. How the war was executed, how the Iraqi people were treated, how Iraqi exists today can all be traced back to the intentions of G.W. Bush. And guess what... Fucked up intentions leads to a fucked up results. And Iraq today is totally fucked up. It will remain fucked up until we spend a hell of a lot more blood and money under good intentions. And that is the legacy of George W. Bush.

Oh, and if you care so much about Iraq, how much are you willing to spend to rebuild it? $1 trillion? $10 trillion?

Dan8267 says

Our nation lost its moral core the day we said torturing people is OK. I'd much rather live in an America with rampant polygamy than one in which torture is considered acceptable.

I simply cannot understand why consensual sex flares up your morality alert system, but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

I never agreed to torture either. That was the decision made purely by government officials and contractors who were paid to torture. And it was one reason why Bush was and still is despised so much. He was an incompetent right winger.

I think that administration didn't realize that what goes around comes around. The more we torture people, the more they'll hate us. Eventually their children grow up with desire for revenge.

---

Let me share an experience with you Dan, hope you'll find it interesting. Many years ago I had a customer (already passed away), older than I, who migrated here from Israel with his family. Many of his prior generation family members were murdered by Muslim extremists years before, and he grew up with hatred. He hated these people and wanted revenge, and I could see much of his message stuck with his children. Jewish Zionists and Muslims will never get along, there is too much blood between them now.

And my point about that story is that we US got involved into that age old war, into those politics and history of murder and hatred, into that fight between nations that have no reconciliation and now we are suffering because of it. It didn't start with Bush or Obama as you know, but there is sure as hell no easy way out of it now.

FortWayne says

Many of his prior generation family members were murdered by Muslim extremists years before, and he grew up with hatred. He hated these people and wanted revenge, and I could see much of his message stuck with his children.

This is also exactly why drone attacks and invasions cause terrorism and why the Middle East and America are far worse off than before the Iraq war.

FortWayne says

Jewish Zionists and Muslims will never get along, there is too much blood between them now.

On that I disagree. How much blood was spilt between Britain and France during the 100 Year War alone? How horrific were the atrocities committed by white Americans against African slaves and Native Americans? Yet people whose ancestors were mortal enemies can and do co-exist, often as a single society. This has happened countless times throughout history in both the small and large scale.

With every generation, there exists the possibility of not carrying over the hatred and sins of the past, or at least diminishing those hatreds. I do not hold it impossible that descendants of Jews and descendants of Arabs cannot co-exist, even intermarry, given enough time. Secularization would greatly speed up this process. The replacement of religious beliefs with scientific education would bury past conflicts in the past.

Dan8267 says

On that I disagree. How much blood was spilt between Britain and France during the 100 Year War alone? How horrific were the atrocities committed by white Americans against African slaves and Native Americans? Yet people whose ancestors were mortal enemies can and do co-exist, often as a single society. This has happened countless times throughout history in both the small and large scale.

100 year war is almost a 1000 years ago. People don't remember it anymore, too many generations passed. But I'm sure first several generations of and after the war held onto the memories while it was still fresh.

Middle east is still a fresh battle ground, conflicts, injury and sorrow are still felt today. They are still fighting each other. And you'd need several generations of peace to pass for that to no longer be relevant. I bet it won't happen in our lifetime.

Dan8267 says

How horrific were the atrocities committed by white Americans against African slaves and Native Americans?

How about the Asian so called atrocities against the world.. wipped out half of Europe.
... the Black Plaque came along for the ride with the Mongols.

Native Americans gave the world Syphilis.. several untold millions perished for the next 500 years because of that.

And today.. Slavery of several millions found in Africa and South Asia.

But you keep blaming the ills of the world on whites.... laughable.

Dan8267 says

When they do, I'll be bitching and moaning about them.

Oh the left never politicize anything... when was your last post bitching about the left?

Dan8267 says

Don't fall into the trap of "the other side would do it, so it's ok for us to do it". Only children think like that.

Once again you clearly misread my comments. I have been saying ALL along that both the left and right have issues and I have never justified the wrongs of "the right" because of the wrongs of "the left". My point is that all you do is bitch about the right... You are no independent as you claim as your views are CLEARLY biased.

BTW, you should heed your own advice... unless you are a child, then I suppose it is ok by your own accord.
Dan8267 says

I would argue that as the commander in chief, lying about the reasons for going to war, victimizes a whole world.

The day that Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Obama are hung for crimes against humanity is the day you can reopen the Clinton case.

Dan8267 says

No, Clinton "got away" on the technicality that he didn't commit perjury, which is pretty intrinsic to the charge of perjury.

The fact that the definition of "sexual relations" during that trial did not include oral sex is a technicality and something that most people would disagree with. Hence there is nothing intrinsic about the fact that he didnt commit perjury, but rather only a technicality. If your wife had oral sex with another man and she told you she didnt have "sexual relations" with another person, would you accept that? I doubt it. Everyone understands the nature of the question.... but as I said, he got away with a technicality.

Dan8267 says

The Republicans should have asked, "did you get a blow job from that woman?".

exactly, a technicality. Thanks for proving my point.

Dan8267 says

Although there may be adultery laws on the books

No, there IS a law on adultery and contrary to your belief, it is illegal. THis was my ONLY point. Whether the law is or should be enforced is which another issue to which I have no opinions on.

Dan8267 says

the private sex lives of politicians are not any of your business whatsoever

It is my business if he is lying about under oath... this is the price you pay when you choose to service in public office.

Dan8267 says

What you should be upset about is a president lying about another country having weapons of mass destruction or lying about the true reasons for going to war, how much the war is going to cost, and how long it is going to last. You should also be upset about a president lying about water-boarding not being torture or about the government's use of torture on people. You should also be upset about the government lying about who is and who is not a terrorist. Yet, these lies don't seem to upset you.

Either you are a liar or you do not read correctly...

Like I said, I have and always have been against the wars in the middle east.

Meccos says

I agree... I have been against the wars in the middle east from the very beginning. However do you agree that Bill Clinton committing perjury also should have not gone unpunished? Does one wrong make another wrong ok? This often seems to be your argument...

I am also against the patriot act, against torture, against all the lying done by all public officials regarding terrorism and the wars.

Again my point is that you only seem to see things from one side...

thomaswong.1986 says

How about the Asian so called atrocities against the world.. wipped out half of Europe.

WTF does that have to do with this thread? Are you saying that it's ok for our country to commit atrocities because other countries in history have? What a despicable excuse for a human being you are.

thomaswong.1986 says

But you keep blaming the ills of the world on whites.... laughable.

No, not whites, just racist hypocritical assholes like you.

I'm quite proud of most of Western culture, just not the xenophobic, racist, pro-torture, hypocritical parts that you embody.

Meccos says

Oh the left never politicize anything... when was your last post bitching about the left?

Today

And before that, today in this very same thread

And before that, earlier today

And before that, still earlier today on this very same thread

And before that, shit, still on today and I can only post five links per post.

Meccos says

If your wife had oral sex with another man and she told you she didnt have "sexual relations" with another person, would you accept that?

If my "wife" even romantically kissed another man, I'd have a problem with that even though it's not "having sexual relations". Now, if my wife performed oral sex on another woman, I'd have no problem with that.

Meccos says

exactly, a technicality. Thanks for proving my point.

Hardly, specifics matter when you throw accusations of perjury at someone.

Meccos says

It is my business if he is lying about under oath... this is the price you pay when you choose to service in public office.

Which he didn't. And wouldn't you be upset if the president lied to you and the entire nation even without being under oath?

Are you seriously saying that if you were given the power, you'd have Bill Clinton thrown in jail for lying but you would not throw George W. Bush in jail for lying about the reasons he went to war and Iraq having WMDs? If so, I really can't respect your opinion. Even if Clinton had lied -- which he didn't -- his lie wouldn't have cost over a million lives of men, women, and children and tens of trillions of dollars. Not only are Bush's lies not in the same ballpark, they are not even the same sport.

There are rational reasons to despise a president, and there is simply irrational hatred of someone. I suspect that had the entire case against Clinton been thrown out before Clinton's testimony, you would still hate Clinton. I suspect that if Clinton was a virgin and never looked at a woman, you'd still hate Clinton.

So, come on. Let's be honest. What is the real reason you hate Clinton. Not the bullshit you tell other people. What is the true reason that you despise Clinton with the white hot hatred of a thousand suns? Is it because he was a successful and popular democratic and his legacy still makes republicans look bad?

Meccos says

Either you are a liar or you do not read correctly...

Like I said, I have and always have been against the wars in the middle east.

You seem to be far more vocal on Bill Clinton's penis than any of the atrocities I've mentioned or the wars in the Middle East.

Meccos says

I am also against the patriot act, against torture, against all the lying done by all public officials regarding terrorism and the wars.

Again my point is that you only seem to see things from one side...

Yet somehow, I'm always the only one criticizing both the Bush and the Obama administrations about these things. How is that one sided?

Oh, maybe I'm just on the blame America side, but wait, then why do I blame Middle Eastern culture for things like honor killings. Damn, don't fit into that box either. Why, try again.

Dan8267 says

you'd have Bill Clinton thrown in jail for lying but you would not throw George W. Bush in jail for lying about the reasons he went to war and Iraq having WMDs?

How many times do I have to tell you that I did not agree with wars in the middle east? Do I have to chisel this fact through your thick skull? THis isnt about Bush. He was also a liar... just like clinton was.

Dan8267 says

Even if Clinton had lied -- which he didn't

He did lie. He publicly admitted it and in fact apologized for it.

Dan8267 says

Not only are Bush's lies not in the same ballpark, they are not even the same sport.

I absolutely agree with you... why do you comment on this as if I disagreed? BUSH BAD BAD BAD... Clinton also BAD... does that make sense to you now? Do you understand now?

Dan8267 says

I suspect that had the entire case against Clinton been thrown out before Clinton's testimony, you would still hate Clinton

Dan8267 says

So, come on. Let's be honest. What is the real reason you hate Clinton. Not the bullshit you tell other people. What is the true reason that you despise Clinton with the white hot hatred of a thousand suns?

Before you try to turn this into a conversation about why I hate clinton, be it known that this is more about how you vehemently defend clinton, knowing full well that he was dishonest during his sex scandal trial.

I dislike Bush for MANY reasons.. I dislike Clinton for many reasons also, one being that he LIED... i didnt like his stance on glass steagal. I also didnt like that signed DOMA into law. With the conversation you are having with thomaswong, im sure you would at least agree with that right?

Dan8267 says

Is it because he was a successful and popular democratic and his legacy still makes republicans look bad?

I suppose I might think that way if I was a repub and I hated democrats. Unfortunately I hate both... and I criticize both repubs and democrats when they do stupid things. You on the other hand seem like to lean heavily to the left and typically bash the right, with few exceptions.

Dan8267 says

You seem to be far more vocal on Bill Clinton's penis than any of the atrocities I've mentioned or the wars in the Middle East.

Only because you so vehemently defend him even when it is clear that he was dishonest...

Dan8267 says

Yet somehow, I'm always the only one criticizing both the Bush and the Obama administrations about these things. How is that one sided?

Dan can you honestly tell everyone here that your posts are not biased towards one side?

Meccos says

How many times do I have to tell you that I did not agree with wars in the middle east? Do I have to chisel this fact through your thick skull? THis isnt about Bush. He was also a liar... just like clinton was.

Every politician is a liar. But Clinton is not guilty of perjury simply because he did not volunteer information to the Republicans that was irrelevant to the trial and whose sole purpose was to create a sex scandal to distract voters from the real issues.

If you're going to judge a politician based on his lies, count the dead bodies that result from the lies. Is there any better measurement of the importance of the lie?

Meccos says

Before you try to turn this into a conversation about why I hate clinton, be it known that this is more about how you vehemently defend clinton, knowing full well that he was dishonest during his sex scandal trial.

"Sex scandal trial" -- exactly. And that's why I don't care if Bill Clinton didn't run up and down shouting that he got his cock sucked. It wasn't relevant to the charges of sexual harassment any more than the consensual sexual activities of a rape victim with other men are relevant in a rape trial. Either you understand that or you don't.

I have no doubt that every president that ever was elected was dishonest every single day of his term. And, for someone who has been accused of having way to high of moral and ethical standards for politicians, I really don't care about every single lie a politician tells. I only care about the ones that materially affect people's lives.

Lies that result in a million dead innocents and cost the country trillions of dollars bug me. Lies about the private sex lives of politicians, as long as those politicians are hypocritically passing legislation against activities they are doing themselves, don't bother me.

Tell me how you or anyone else was negatively affected by Bill Clinton not saying "I did have sexual relations with Monica Lewinski, she gave me a blow job and I jizzed all over her dress."? How exactly would your life or anyone else's life -- parasites writing books and tabloid excluded -- would be better if Clinton had said that? That's what I don't get.

And by the way, I'm not defending Clinton insomuch as I'm attacking the ridiculousness of the burn-Clinton-for-lying.

But hey maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you can explain it better by answering the following questions.

1. What punishment should Clinton get for his answers about Lewinski?
2. What punishment should Bush get for his lies about Iraq having WMDs?
3. What punishment should Bush get for starting the Iraq war?
4. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for using torture?
5. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for illegal wiretapping?
6. Is there anything else that Clinton should be punished for?

And please go into the details of why each person should get the punishment you prescribe. And to be fair, I'll go first.

1. None because no the entire situation was a contrived scandal, Clinton didn't commit perjury (technicality matters in legal technical charges), no injustice was done, there was no victim, and the courts should not be used for selfish political purposes.

2. Tar'ed and feathered in public. That's exactly what the historical punishment for this kind of crime would be.

3. The death penalty because starting an unjust war that causes a million deaths is mass murder.

4. They should be forced to watch their children and spouses being tortured to death in the exact same manner their victims were tortured to death. Then they should experience it first hand. Turnabout is fair play.

5. All their property should be confiscated to pay society back and they should be given a 10-year consecutive sentence for each of the 300 million counts of wiretapping. Unfortunately, this sentence would be impossible to carry out and is rather mutually exclusive with number four. Nonetheless, this is how most people would be treated by the courts for mass wiretapping.

6. I have quite a few problems with the Clinton administration, but none that would constitute Clinton committing a crime.

Your turn.

@dan,

speaking of Clinton,... you started this post about gay marriages and how repubs only change their mind when it affects them personally. Do tell us how you feel about Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law... Being how you are sooooo unbiased, I would have expected you to say something about this on this thread by now.

Meccos says

Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law...

has since changed his position on it. The only major party still holding onto it - and spending your tax dollars clinging to it - is the party of John's orange Boehner.

curious2 says

Meccos says

Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law...

has since changed his position on it. The only major party still holding onto it - and spending your tax dollars clinging to it - is the party of John's orange Boehner.

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

Also whats worse was Clinton was never for DOMA... he only signed it to gain political clout to help him in his re-election campaign.

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

I thought this particular thread was about Republicans allegedly not caring about anyone other than their own children, but whatever.

You're right Clinton had not favored DoMA, in fact in 1992 he campaigned on nearly the opposite, saying same-sex couples should be eligible for the same federal legal treatment as opposite-sex couples including tax filing etc. It's a bit like Obama campaigning in 2008 against Hillary's Plan, then signing his own name onto it so now it's called Obamacare. It's an interesting piece of history that, as far back as 1992, voters already elected a President who had campaigned in favor of legal recognition for same-sex couples.

chanakya4773 says

Funny thing is that We justify sadam hussain hanging for killing innocent civilians while bush killed 10 time more to get to him.

Civilian dead include everything from car accidents, insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence. Sectarian killings (Iraqi vs Iraqi) and countless criminal killings were unattributable to our forces. If it makes you feel better we did a great job "eliminating" 25,000 - 35,000 insurgents, killers thugs and murders. They wont be killing anyone, anywhere, anytime soon.

You seem to forgotten Saddams invasion or Iran and Kuwait... how many millions were killed ?

curious2 says

You're right Clinton had not favored DoMA, in fact in 1992 he campaigned on nearly the opposite, saying same-sex couples should be eligible for the same federal legal treatment as opposite-sex couples including tax filing etc.

Strange how when Billy Bob fliped flopped this past month.. so now history is being rewritten.

Meccos says

Wrong, it wasnt just because he with-held information. The only reason he got off was because of the technicality of the definition of "sexual relations".

So Clinton was acquitted on the technicality that he did not perjure and the technicality that there was no case against him. That's one hell of a technicality. Sort of like how the Duke Lacrosse team got off on the technicality that they didn't actually rape anyone and the charges were completely fabricated.

Meccos says

Funny thing is although he claimed he did not have "sexual relations" during the trial he later recanted and publicly apologized.

Wrong again. Clinton apology for having an inappropriate relationship (i.e., blowjob) with Lewinsky, not for committing perjury or lying. And quite frankly, the only reason Clinton had to apologize is because America is a dumb country that cares more about the private sex lives of politicians than the policies they make.

http://www.7r4e5Wg4PDI

I particularly like the part when Clinton points out that the lawsuit was purely political and was dismissed, and the part where Clinton asks us to get our asses out of the gutter so we can handle important issues like national security. Had we listened, 9/11 would not have happened. Funny how obsessing over unimportant shit can prevent important shit from getting done. Actually, it's not funny.

Meccos says

speaking of Clinton,... you started this post about gay marriages and how repubs only change their mind when it affects them personally. Do tell us how you feel about Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law

Yes, and that was bad policy along with Don't Ask Don't Tell, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, his administration stance on commercial encryption, his failure to reform health care, and a host of other things I could go into detail about.

However, none of that is criminal activity or worthy of impeachment.

So you're point is what?

Oh, and by the way, you haven't answered the questions I posed. Are they too uncomfortable to answer?

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

Also whats worse was Clinton was never for DOMA... he only signed it to gain political clout to help him in his re-election campaign.

Oh, I get it now. You are a Clinton hater and this whole discussion about the dismissed political impeachment process that had absolutely no merit was just the only way you thought you could attack Clinton.

See, this is exactly why I find the whole impeachment bullshit ridiculous. It was the 1990s equivalent of the Birther movement, a completely fabricated allegation that people with an utterly irrational hatred of the president cannot let go of no matter what evidence is brought to light.

curious2 says

Meccos says

Clinton actually being the president that signed DOMA into law...

has since changed his position on it. The only major party still holding onto it - and spending your tax dollars clinging to it - is the party of John's orange Boehner.

The Democrats are pussies who don't support civil rights until the popular support is great enough that it won't cost them politically. LBJ was like that on racial issues, and Clinton and Obama were like that on gay issues.

The Republicans, however, are actively evil and working against human and civil rights issues. This makes them exponentially worse.

curious2 says

Meccos says

Wasnt this thread began as a rant about people changing stance on gay marriage?

I thought this particular thread was about Republicans allegedly not caring about anyone other than their own children, but whatever.

Exactly. This thread was started to illustrate the utter hypocrisy that Republican politicians exhibit where they oppose the basic human and civil rights of minorities until one of their own kids becomes a member of that minority.

You can see it in Rob Portman ceasing his gay bashing after his son comes out of the closet. You can see it in Dick Cheney who would have bashed gays if his daughter didn't come out. You can see it in the Palin family who would take away the right to have an abortion in early pregnancy but when their daughter gets knocked up, it's a private matter.

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your position on a topic because you learned something or matured as a human being. There is something grossly wrong about creating draconian laws and then brushing them aside when they become a burden on your own family. And that is something we should not tolerate in politicians.

chanakya4773 says

Nice Try to fucking justify 40,000 dead Iraqis...go tell this to the parents of all those dead kids and lets see if they agree with you

Imagine if there was a much more powerful country which bombs USA and your hometown.They kill million civilian people while they also get rid of all the gang bangers/killers/thugs and murders.and then justify their mass murder by saying that they got rid of all bad people ...so hurray.

Exactly what I would have said. It's amazing how republican voters will bend over backwards to rationalize the utter evil committed by their politicians. Hmmm, what would Jesus do? Who would Jesus torture? Would Jesus kill a million civilians to get a few guilty persons? If only the Christian right actually believed in half the shit Jesus said.

Dan8267 says

So Clinton was acquitted on the technicality that he did not perjure and the technicality that there was no case against him.

The technicality was that someone decided "sexual relations" does not include oral sex, sticking a cigar up someone's vagina and fondling other private areas that most, if not nearly all americans, would consider "sexual relations". Just because he was not found guilty of something, does not mean he is not really guilty of it. Plenty of politicians get away with breaking the law, this is no different.

Dan8267 says

Yes, and that was bad policy along with Don't Ask Don't Tell, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act, his administration stance on commercial encryption, his failure to reform health care, and a host of other things I could go into detail about.

However, none of that is criminal activity or worthy of impeachment.

So you're point is what?

You rant about repubs changing their minds about gay marriage and yet you fail to even mention the very president who signed DOMA into law. Worse of all, he wasnt even for DOMA, but he signed it anyways for POLITICAL reasons. These are all things you rightfully accuse the right of doing, but the accusations are solely on the right... Not one mention in your numerous comments on this thread until you are force to acknowledge it... there is no bias here at all right?

Dan8267 says

This thread was started to illustrate the utter hypocrisy that Republican politicians exhibit where they oppose the basic human and civil rights of minorities until one of their own kids becomes a member of that minority.

Right, as I have many times mentioned before, there is hypocrisy from repubs. However why is it so hard for you to admit that there is the same similar hypocrisy from the left? And when someone points it out, why are you sooooo defensive about it?

Dan8267 says

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with changing your position on a topic because you learned something or matured as a human being.

I agree with you. We are all entitled to change our minds if our minds have truly changed. And if that is the case, how do you not know that the personal experience of these repubs with their family members being gay did not enlighten and allowed them to come to a better understanding of gay marriages?

Clinton signing DOMA, however, was no change in mind. He was against it, but signed it anyway for political purposes. This is even worse than what you claim the repubs of doing. At least one can argue that their personal experience with a gay family member truly helped them to understand the issue and changed their way of thought. Clintons only argument was that he wanted to be re-elected.

Meccos says

The technicality was that someone decided "sexual relations" does not include oral sex

It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans asked the wrong question and didn't have the brains to follow up with a "and by sexual relations you meant?" like any decent lawyer would have done. A person on trial has no ethical or legal obligation to answer questions in a way that would maximize damage to his reputation particularly when the answer and the question are irrelevant to the trial.

And my analysis has nothing to do with Bill Clinton. I'd say the exact same thing no matter who was on trial. You cannot honestly say the same thing.

Meccos says

You rant about repubs changing their minds about gay marriage and yet you fail to even mention the very president who signed DOMA into law.

Because that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about Republican congressmen flipping 180 degrees on policy as soon as their own children are the ones discriminated against. What the fuck does that have to do with the Clinton administration?

Meccos says

Worse of all, he wasnt even for DOMA, but he signed it anyways for POLITICAL reasons. These are all things you rightfully accuse the right of doing, but the accusations are solely on the right... Not one mention in your numerous comments on this thread until you are force to acknowledge it... there is no bias here at all right?

You are so full of shit here. First off, the very fact that you are harping on Clinton signing DOMA shows that your whole intention is to make Clinton look bad no matter what. It's not that you are upset over anything Clinton did. You just hate Clinton and no matter what he does, it's the wrong thing. This is absolutely no different than the Republicans today bashing everything Obama does even when Obama proposes the Republican's very own policies like the individual mandate in health care.

Second, complaining about Bill Clinton signing DOMA especially without agreeing with it would be a perfectly good criticism of the Clinton administration. However, it is irrelevant to both this thread and the perjury tangent you spun off. That is why I didn't even think to mention it until you brought it up. It's completely irrelevant to both discussions.

Third, I do call bullshit on the left all the time. In fact, KarlRoveIsScum made me an honorary Tea Party Lunatic. You can't get more right wing than that. Perhaps you and the other troll should battle it out to determine if I'm a flag-burning, tax-wasting, terrorist coddling pinko or a racist Tea Party lunatic that gets his talking points from Darth Scaletta. Clearly, I can't be both.

In fact, one might just conjecture that the reason you think I'm so far left-leaning and the reason KarlRoveIsScum thinks I'm so far right-leaning, is that you both are perfect examples of the batshit crazy polarization of politics in America that makes it impossible for anyone but extremists to be heard.

Fourth, I do have a bias, one I freely admit. I'm bias towards the truth, no matter how unpleasant it is. You want me to accept that the universe was create when a giant space turtle ejaculated on a shoe? Fine, prove it and I'll accept it. That's how open minded I am. You can convince me of anything if you have proof, but you can convince me of nothing without proof.

http://www.K1eeZr2WKKE

And, as I've said many times, the truth is most often orthogonal to the entire left-right line. In fact, the very notion of separating politics into left and right is literally so one-dimensional and indicates a simple and childish view of the world.

That said, we are stuck with just two parties in this country. One party has been taken completely over by nutjobs. And everyone else, no matter how different their politics are, has taken refuge in the other party. The only thing that Democrats agree on is that things would be worst with those batshit crazy Republicans in charge. And the Republicans have only themselves to blame for this truth. It was the Republicans who purged their own party of any rational or moderate politicians, what Republicans call impure or Rinos (Republicans In Name Only). It was this very purse over the past 20 years that has made the Republican Party the batshit crazy party and the Democratic Party, the inept, internally bickering, do-nothing party that it is.

So perhaps trolls like you and KarlRoveIsScum should start being so religious about politics and start being religious about rationality, facts, and objectivity. And, by the way, objectivity doesn't mean presenting both sides of the story when one side is bullshit. For example, evolution vs creationism.

Speaking of drone strikes, here is an interactive that shows all the drone strikes in Pakistan.

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Dan8267 says

It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans asked the wrong question and didn't have the brains to follow up with a "and by sexual relations you meant?" like any decent lawyer would have done. A person on trial has no ethical or legal obligation to answer questions in a way that would maximize damage to his reputation particularly when the answer and the question are irrelevant to the trial.

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Dan8267 says

Because that had absolutely nothing to do with this thread. This thread was about Republican congressmen flipping 180 degrees on policy as soon as their own children are the ones discriminated against. What the fuck does that have to do with the Clinton administration?

Because Clinton did the same 180... What was worse with Clinton is that he didnt even believe DOMA but signed it anyway, for purely political reasons. At least with some of the repubs you can make the argument that their opinions have honestly changed because of their personal experience. THe point of me even stating this is to prove that you are so biased that you rant about these repubs (who can arguably have good reason to change their stance on this subject), but you do not even mention and now defend Clinton for doing the same thing for an completely inexcusable reason.

Again, let me state this again since you never seem to answer this question. .. All I have been saying is that both the left and the right do stupid crap and are hypocrites. You very easily point out the faults of the right, but cant seem to admit the same shit flows on the left. Why do you get soooooooo defensive when someone points out the faults on the left??? You being the independent you claim you are, I would imagine you would just agree and move on, instead of being such a staunch defender of these crooks.

Meccos says

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

In some countries, a female having lunch with an unrelated male is "sexual activity". It's one of those things that depends a lot on context. Rubbing someone's feet is that sexual, or not? Well depends on who's doing it, how they react, and who's watching.

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

And just because a person is found guilty doesn't mean that person did commit the crime, either.

So do you honestly think that he didnt engage in any sexual activity????

As your reading comprehension skills are obviously deficient, I'll repeat myself. I have no doubt that Clinton had lots of sexual activity with lots of women. That doesn't make Clinton guilty of perjury as the dumb-ass Republicans using the courts in contempt did not ask, "Did you have sexual activity with Monica Lewinsky?". Had the conniving Republicans asked, "Did you donkey punch Monica Lewinsky?", Clinton could also have truthfully answered "no" even though a donkey punch would most likely be construed as sexual activity.

Meccos says

Exactly, this is exactly the technicality I suggested, to which you clearly have nothing else to say but the lawyers did a bad job.

Actually, I've added quite a bit explaining to you that a defendant, even Clinton, has no legal or ethical obligation to provide answers outside the scope of the questions asked in questioning. Any fucking lawyer worse his salt will tell his client, answer the question asked and nothing more, and keep your answers short. This is exactly what Clinton did.

The Republicans were violating the ethics of the court system by attempting to entrap the president and by fishing for materials that had nothing to do with the case being heard and only would serve as political propaganda in the next election. The court would have been in its right and in its duty had it disbarred all the prosecutors for their unethical actions.

But I'll add something else. The prosecutors committed a crime by failing to disclose evidence (the Lewinsky cum-stained dress). This is a fucking serious offense.

The government has a continuing duty to disclose evidence after a request for disclosure has been made. It must promptly disclose additional evidence whenever it discovers it, even during trial.
...
The defendant is guaranteed the right to a fair trial. The government must follow the law and respect the rights of the defendant. If it fails to do so, it commits misconduct. There are many different types of misconduct. One of the most common is the withholding of evidence.

If the government fails to disclose relevant information, the court may impose a punishment on the party

The act of violating full disclosure laws goes against the very founding principles of this nation, and there is no excuse for it. All the Republican lawyers should have been disbarred and jailed for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. The only victim in this case was Clinton.

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"
G.W. Bush

CaptainShuddup says

Dan8267 says

but torture, false imprisonment, and drone assassination does not.

"Well tell them to stop doing that shit, and we wont bomb them!"

G.W. Bush

The retard Bush was lying when he said that. Notice that we don't bomb, torture, or assassinate Syrian President Bashar Al-assad, who is way the fuck worse than Saddam was.

Bush chooses his targets like any other predator. He picks the weakest ones. Bush and Obama don't have the balls to go after Al-assad, but they have no problem attacking a near defenseless country.

Dan8267 says

So Meccos, now that I've answered every single one of your questions several times, do you think you could grow a pair and answer these questions honestly and sincerely?

Or are you too afraid?

Hahahah you have answered about 10% of my questions. Feel free to browse through the MULTIPLE questions which you havent answered. I refuse to waste my time to link each one again. In regards to your question, why would I be afraid to answer your silly questions?

Dan8267 says

1. What punishment should Clinton get for his answers about Lewinski?

2. What punishment should Bush get for his lies about Iraq having WMDs?

3. What punishment should Bush get for starting the Iraq war?

4. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for using torture?

5. What punishment should Bush and Obama each get for illegal wiretapping?

6. Is there anything else that Clinton should be punished for?

1. he should have been impeached
2. he should have been convicted of war crime and sentence to whatever punishment fits that conviction
3. same answer as #2
4. same answer as #2
5. whatever the courts would consider fair for illegal wiretapping
6. what other laws did he break?

Silly questions... the question you should have asked is do you think these idiots should have been convicted for these crimes first...