Let them go at it. We need a population reduction.

Meh. We receive more crud from the testing in the 60s than we would if those two attention whores burn each other to cinders.

The Chinese will catch some, though. Boo hoo hoo.

A long list of denials without a single supporting fact? Let's add reality to some of your denials:

The 1996 Federal Communication Act: Meanwhile the act forced anti-innovative communication companies to either provide a stifled 1981 technology called DSL, OR open their lines so that anyone could provide broadband. Yes, DSL technology was demonstrated even in 1981 when American communication companies were routinely stifling innovation - until 1996. Technology that should have been widely available in the 1990s still was not available until the 1996 Federal Communication Act all but required it.

Stopping massive worldwide terrorism planned for the Millennium (including LAX, NY Time Square, Toronto, Egypt, Amman Jordan, etc.):
You are supposed to learn basic history before having opinions. Those attacks stopped by Clinton are common knowledge. Even described in detail by Richard Clark who was head of the White House CounterTerrorism Security Group (CSG). It takes almost nothing to learn how Clinton mobilized then entire government resulting in Diana Dean finding an LAX bomb in WA. Same attacks to even sink the USS The Sullivans failed (because bombers loaded too much explosives and sunk their own boat).

Clinton regarded bin Laden as the number one threat to America which is why he even created Alec Station - a group assigned only to get bin Laden. As Richard Clark so bluntly said, "George W Bush, who failed to act on the threats from Al Qaeda despite repeated warnings ..." Clinton personally warned President-elect Bush of the threat he considered the most dangerous. Nobody could have asked more of Clinton. When Cofer Black warned of the Millennium attack in December 1999, Clinton responded by mobilizing every government agency. FISA judges (secret courts to authorize wiretaps during national emergencies) were swamped with subpoena requests. Even the RCMP were informed of sleeper cells they did not know about. You did not know any of this? Meanwhile, George Jr latter disbanded Alec Station because terrorism was not a threat.

All that is common knowledge to those who learn. Naysaying is how those without knowledge use Limbaugh tactics to deny reality.

No credible links are necessary because you are expected to first know this basic history before having opinions. If you know Clinton did so little, then you must deny what every informed American knows: what Diana Dean did. A language often associated with those who always know and need not learn facts. Therefore you know Pakistan is not our f problem?

Knowledge easily identifies what is probably the greatest threat to the world and the US: Pakistan. Apparently you did not learn a long list of reasons why, or just don't care to know. So you have no appreciation of what Clinton did.

Then why didn't he take him out when Bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

Because Bin Ladin was never handed to him on a silver platter. That business has been debunked more times than I care to mention, and people STILL trot it out.

Clinton was a schmoe. Very few people will argue against that. But the "silver platter" business isn't true. It's just a stale Rovian talking point...effective vs Gore back in 2000, but a lie nonetheless.

Hey...conversation over.

When you can speak in a civil tone, let me know and we can continue.

TGRR,
Knows that appeal to "common knowledge" isn't evidence for a position.

:D

Heh:

.

And that's all she wrote.

From factcheck - It would be virtually unheard of to have concrete evidence on a matter like this.

Odd that the man in question was never a representative of the Sudanese government, and Sudan says they have no fucking clue who he is or what he was talking about.

But some neocon nutcase named Lawrence Wright says otherwise, so all involved people are therefore lying or part of a conspiracy.

Also...Newsmax? Are you taking the piss? Why not just link to Rush Limbaugh and be done with it?

Look it up yourself then. The newsmax link is audio of Clinton himself. If you had cared to actually read the links or check out the cites instead of frothing at the mouth like an idiot. The Washington Post link or the Factcheck ink weren't good enough? There were tons of links on subject. Do your homework next time. THis time you get an "F" as in FAIL.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec..._chance_1.html



:lol: And you get a "P" as in Partisan Hack, Gullible, 1 each.

He repeatedly did using what was available. What secret did you withhold rather than contribute?

Why? Because he opposes your view? I fail to understand your logic.

Naw, because he decided to start screeching at me because I wouldn't accept the word of one neocon freak over everyone actually involved and/or present when the situation occurred.

Sorry if you're having trouble with it.

You should reread my post - I stated that there wasn't "concrete" evidence. Then supported my claim with several links from the mul-tit-ude of sources available.

Oh, and using the same link as I doesn't really support your case. Especially if you read more than just the first few lines.

Then there isn't evidence.

I accept your surrender in this matter.

Fail.

Oh, okay. :lol:

So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?

Right?

:lol:

Ask around. See what others think.

Oh, okay, so the facts of a given event are dictated by the opinions of some people on an internet political forum?

Is that what you're saying?

You're entitled to your opinion, and to express it here. In fact, we welcome it. Helps get to know you better.

If you try passing off your opinion as fact, you're going to get dropped on though. That's pretty fair warning.

Best to provide links from credible sources to support the views you offer as fact if someone asks.

Absolutely not. Never said that.

What I said was when you state,

"So when you ask me for a link, and I say, "well, there's no actual evidence for my position, you'll just have to believe me", you won't see anything wrong with that?"

Ask around and see what others think about your statement.

READ the post -

Unless you're on the right, when you can just say you don't have evidence, but everyone has to believe you anyway.

Or words to that effect.

I did. I even let it slide the first time. Then you brought it up again.

Well, I'm not a right leaning person. Definitely more liberal than conservative, but I don't have a problem with discussions here where my conservative friends get on their high horses and start sprouting horns and stuff. They're all pretty reasonable most of the time, and when they're not, I usually just stop talking to them, or start cracking jokes. We all have that right. ;) I don't think any of them think I'm stupid for my views though, and I don't think they'd think that of anyone else either.

Sure, things get heated sometimes, and people start getting personal, but it blows over.

The important thing to remember is, the conservatives are always wrong, even if they don't realize it. ;) It's our job as liberals to guide them through the murky waters of life to ultimate enlightenment.

YOU'RE WRONG Ali! Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa


now where is my damned horse

I believe that like I believe that all liberals are socialists cloaked in clothing none of them can recognize each other by. Wait. That might be true. Ok, carry on. :D

lol...you make me laugh classic.

eta: you too merc. ;)

He is right here:

http://www.nmubaseball.net/uscho/deadhorse.gif

What passes for liberalism today isn't right, either.

Outside of Berkeley, anyway.

Berkley!?!?!? :D

Dude, now I will have to http://members.gamedev.net/vilio/LMAO.jpg. K?

What do you mean by that?

I mean what passes for liberalism at Berkeley has zero to do with liberalism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries.

I can see that I need to use smaller words when I respond to you.

TGRR,
Hopes that might help with your context problem.

Well, I don't go to berkely and I don't really know what the founders of liberalism thought it should be like.

I've been labled a liberal on this board, so that's what I am for all intents and purposes through the course of discussions here.

I've been labled other things too, but they don't have much relevance to current events of political discussion. :)

wellll, they are entitled to their wrong opinion... :p

That's true mate. ;)

Well then, I guess it depends on who you ask.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...utdown_of_1995
The Republicans tried to blame Clinton for the shutdown, but Clinton got a break two days later when Gingrich made a widely-reported complaint about being snubbed by Clinton; Tom DeLay called it "the mistake of his [Gingrich's] life".[1]

Delay writes in his book, No Retreat, No Surrender:[3]

"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One...Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child..The revolution, I can tell you, was never the same."

You mean kind of like what passes as conservatism in the republican party today has zero to do with conservatism as understood by the founders and their contemporaries? :D

Come on now, Wiki is constantly updated and counter updated by people with political agendas. If you don't believe me ask UT about his experience with annotations on Wiki.

And who can authenticate that? You? For every opinion about what "founders" thought and believed there is a counter arguement.

I'm a proud liberal, and if I could afford to live in Berkley, I would go in a heartbeat! Hell yes!

Precisely.

Of course, back then, they called conservatives "Tories".

:lol:

Nonsense. What passes for conservativism today was a philosophy mainly held by Alexander Hamilton and 300,000 pissed off tories.

So, you support gun ownership, right?

I know. But it is still a credible resource. And it appears that some people hold Clinton responsible while others hold republicans responsible. One thing is for certain, republicans are not interested in compromise. Never have been, never will be. Democrats always compromise.

Oh good grief. Conservatism is supposed to be about fiscal responsibilty, and republicans, since Reagan, have been anything BUT.

Not if you want to live in Berkley! Diane Feinstein’s back yard. You know miss Gun-Grabber herself. The one who wants to take guns away from people yet she secretly owns one herself? pssst.... don't tell anyone.

So now you are going to tell me how Demoncrats are fiscally responsible with the latest spending package. :lol2:

I do. But I also support reasonable laws and regulations to keep them from getting into the wrong hands. And ftr, I do not own a gun. I have never owned a gun. I have never felt the need to own a gun. And I lived in Los Angeles for 10 years, 1 1/2 of which were in the hood in Venice. Never had a problem. Ever.

Well what would you suggest we do? We have to do something, and most economists are saying the package is actually not big enough.

If bush had not run our deficit into the stratosphere with his stupid wars, we would not be in this mess. We would have the money to handle the situation and wouldn't have to borrow it.

Cool, and the Liberals of 200 years ago are the same of today? :lol2:

The deficit has little to do with it. Of course we would still have to barrow it.

Got to run, you'all have fun. :D

My point exactly.

A classic liberal doesn't believe in gun ownership...they INSIST on it. Fatally, if necessary.

What passes for liberalism today is something like watered down British nanny-statism.

You catch on quick, don't you?

Maybe it was those posts where I said that wasn't the case.

TGRR,
Will type slower, and use smaller words.

Typing slower is always helpful.