PDA

View Full Version : Clinton owns Fox



Qtec
09-24-2006, 07:58 PM
clinton interview (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/fox-clinton-interview-part-1-osama-bin-laden/)

Summary: Bill grabs interviewer by the short-and-curley,s and doesnt let go! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Its refreshing to hear a politician actually answer a question for once with some conviction! Something that has been missing for the last 5 years unlike paper politicians like Frist. Here is the proof! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
link (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/24/waterboarding-in-frist-on-this-week/) /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
blah blah .soundbite...blah.....talking point..........blah.....

Q

reggie182
09-24-2006, 08:23 PM
Bill Clinton has now had his "Tom Cruise" moment. The only thing missing was the couch. Kudos to Chris Wallace for having the audacity to ask the slick one tough questions. Such a thing would likely not have occurred in the traditional liberal media. Clinton's arrogance and narcissism made for quite a revealing spectacle. However, there is a reason for willie acting like a jerk and becoming unhinged. As things currently stand, his legacy is primarily linked to a stain on a dress. You add a feckless response to a building terrorist threat to the mix, and his legacy is cooked.

pooltchr
09-25-2006, 05:06 AM
I'm not sure I would say Clinton scored a lot of points in the interview. His asertation that he tried to get BL is not backed up by what I read in the Commission report. There were several opportunities during his terms in office, but at the last minute, they pulled back. If he really wanted it to happen, he could have made it happen. He was the President, after all.
Steve

Chopstick
09-25-2006, 05:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>
Its refreshing to hear a politician actually answer a question for once with some conviction!
<hr /></blockquote>

I think he came off as a complete jacka$$. He said back then they didn't even know Al Q existed. Well, when they blew up the Trade Center the first time you might have gotten a clue. He had Bin Laden twice and let him go.

Fran Crimi
09-25-2006, 05:53 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I'm not sure I would say Clinton scored a lot of points in the interview. His asertation that he tried to get BL is not backed up by what I read in the Commission report. There were several opportunities during his terms in office, but at the last minute, they pulled back. If he really wanted it to happen, he could have made it happen. He was the President, after all.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Janet Reno insisted there wasn't enough evidence to charge Bin Laden and Clinton bought into it. He pulled back out of fear for his own hide. Instead of acting in the best interest of the country, He and Reno gave a terrorist the benefit of the doubt. Just brilliant. Clinton will never admit to his extremely bad judgement in that. He's been skirting around that issue ever since. Slick Willie rides again.

Fran

DickLeonard
09-25-2006, 06:13 AM
Pooltchr the people who watch Fox News he couldn't penetrate with a high powered drill. The FBI warned the White House about pilots only taking flying lessons, no landing lessons and they totally ignored them. It sickens me when I hear they are the only ones who can fight Terror. They had their chance and they blew it. Believe me that was a much bigger Blow job than Clintons.

nAz
09-25-2006, 07:52 AM
lol I saw it... I don't really blame him for getting upset, he said he tried and failed to get him for numerous reason and apologized for it on a few occasions, he should not get the whole blame for it though I mean did his Admin not brief the incoming admin about the dangers of OBL did not R. Clark warn Bush repeatedly? I guess Bush did not think it was that important any ways. but not for nothing he and Bushed blew it and now the race is on to see who can get the history books written in their favor.

pooltchr
09-25-2006, 08:57 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr the people who watch Fox News he couldn't penetrate with a high powered drill. The FBI warned the White House about pilots only taking flying lessons, no landing lessons and they totally ignored them. It sickens me when I hear they are the only ones who can fight Terror. They had their chance and they blew it. Believe me that was a much bigger Blow job than Clintons. <hr /></blockquote>

I'm not giving the Bush administration a pass, but the previous administration had several opportunities to eliminate the threat during 8 years in office and failed to take action. GW had 9 MONTHS. Read the 9-11 Commission Report. You will see that the plot was developed in the '90s. That would have been the best opportunity to stop it.
Steve

Qtec
09-25-2006, 06:00 PM
WALLACE: …but the question is why didn’t you do more, connect the dots and put them out of business?

CLINTON: OK, let’s talk about it. I will answer all of those things on the merits but I want to talk about the context of which this arises. I’m being asked this on the FOX network…ABC just had a right wing conservative on the Path to 9/11 falsely claim that it was based on the 9/11 Commission report with three things asserted against me that are directly contradicted by the 9/11 Commission report. I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden.
All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much. Same people.

<font color="blue"> </font color>


Clinton takes on Fox News bias:

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him

CLINTON: What did I do? I worked hard to try and kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him. Now I never criticized President Bush and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is 1/7 as important as Iraq. And you ask me about terror and Al Qaeda with that sort of dismissive theme when all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive systematic way to try to protect the country against terror. And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…

WALLACE: [Laughs]

CLINTON: I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get Bin Laden. I regret it but I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could. The entire military was against sending special forces into Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter and no one thought we could do it otherwise…We could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaeda was responsible while I was President. Until I left office. And yet I get asked about this all the time and they had three times as much time to get him as I did and no one ever asks them about this. I think that’s strange.

http://thinkprogress.org/clinton-interview

<font color="blue"> Truth is Bill did all he could under the circumstances. The Bush Govt demoted Dick C and downgraded the terrorist threat. Not even the Memo [ that they tried so very hard to hide] entitled "Bin Laden determined to attack the USA" could make them cancel their vacations! In the 9 months that Bush did nothing ,the 9/11 terrorists had a free hand to bring their operation to fruition.
You guys must be watching the wrong video or you are so partisan that your mind won't let you recognise the truth.

</font color> /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q

reggie182
09-25-2006, 07:59 PM
Does the President have authority over the FBI and the CIA, or do they have authority over him? Clinton most assuredly did not do all he could have. A simple look at the basics of the Executive branch reveals that.

wolfdancer
09-25-2006, 10:02 PM
Somebody mentioned here that GWB only had nine months in office before the attack....my question then would be....why wasn't he brought up to date by the intelligence community?
Nine months seems like an adequate time frame to me. It isn't like the outgoing President takes all the intel with him.
Richard Clarke though says he was informed, and choose to ignore it...and focus on Saddam.

DickLeonard
09-26-2006, 05:14 AM
Wolfdancer according to William Cohen Cliton's Sec. for Defense they were only interested in Iraq.####

pooltchr
09-26-2006, 05:29 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> Somebody mentioned here that GWB only had nine months in office before the attack....my question then would be....why wasn't he brought up to date by the intelligence community? <font color="blue"> I'm sure he was </font color>
Nine months seems like an adequate time frame to me. <font color="blue">Clinton had 8 years and he admitted that he couldn't get BL, even though he tried. I agree, 9 months should have been plenty of time...Clinton had 96 months and couldn't get it done. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif </font color> It isn't like the outgoing President takes all the intel with him.
Richard Clarke though says he was informed, and choose to ignore it...and focus on Saddam. <hr /></blockquote>
Considering the information in the 9-11 report, I'm not so sure that the information the outgoing administration had was all that accurate either. If it was good intel, and BC really wanted to kill BL, it should have happened. It didn't! Why not?
Steve

hondo
09-26-2006, 05:46 AM
LOL. Fran's been watching t.v. docudramas again.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> I'm not sure I would say Clinton scored a lot of points in the interview. His asertation that he tried to get BL is not backed up by what I read in the Commission report. There were several opportunities during his terms in office, but at the last minute, they pulled back. If he really wanted it to happen, he could have made it happen. He was the President, after all.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Janet Reno insisted there wasn't enough evidence to charge Bin Laden and Clinton bought into it. He pulled back out of fear for his own hide. Instead of acting in the best interest of the country, He and Reno gave a terrorist the benefit of the doubt. Just brilliant. Clinton will never admit to his extremely bad judgement in that. He's been skirting around that issue ever since. Slick Willie rides again.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
09-26-2006, 05:58 AM
Is that the best you can do? Why not say I got it from watching Saturday morning cartoons? No, here's a better one....I got it from a comic book.

Fran

eg8r
09-26-2006, 06:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Truth is Bill did all he could under the circumstances. <hr /></blockquote> You have no idea what the truth is. All you know is what you just heard which is from a man who could not remember anything while in office but all of a sudden has perfect memory out of office. He is only stating what will make himself look good and hindsight is 20/20.

eg8r

Qtec
09-26-2006, 07:08 AM
[ QUOTE ]
You have no idea what the truth is. <hr /></blockquote> America's top Al Q/ terrorist expert, D Clarke,[ and the 911 com ] backs up what he says.

Don't believe Clinton, believe Dick.

Q

cushioncrawler
09-26-2006, 08:15 AM
Hey Wolfy -- we all know where GWB woz when he heard of 9/11 -- but, do u know where Billy woz when he first heard ??? -- here iz a clue -- it woznt far from where Steve met a big stingray. Another clue, he woznt talking to kidz -- he woz drinking some great ozzy wine.

Wolfdancer -- Hmmmmmmm -- me, myself, i woz born in Wolfenbuttel -- perhaps i should call meself WolfButt.

Chopstick
09-26-2006, 08:19 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>

Don't believe Clinton, believe Dick.

Q <hr /></blockquote>

Dick doesn't know Jack!

wolfdancer
09-26-2006, 08:52 AM
Q, it doesn't matter if Bill scored any points at all in that interview. It's purpose (imho) with elections coming up...is to shift some, or all of the blame for 9/11 onto the Clinton admin....
AND to make us forget that even after the attack....the Bush focus..... was not OBL....but Saddam.
I believe that point alone, explains why any intel concerning a possible attack by OBL was purposely put aside under Bush's orders.
Well, some three years after deposing Saddam....and "Mission Accomplished !"....and an Iraqi "free election"...Iraq is in turmoil...and if ain't a civil war over there...it's a pretty good imitation of one.
Seems like this admin.....had no clue about the result of bombing Iraq, and replacing it's leaders?????
But maybe Bill Clinton withheld that info from GWB as well???

Drop1
09-26-2006, 07:51 PM
I don't think Bill told Hilary every thing,but I do think Bush and Rice were informed of OBL long before the tower attack,but Bush had his heart set on Iraq,the evil axis,and Spider Man. In a nice way,could some of the Republicans on the Forum list the great moments of GWB's time at the White House.

Qtec
09-27-2006, 03:49 AM
What we do know for sure is that GW had the FULL backing of the total military might of the USA and the co-operation of over 40 countries when he went after OBL in Afghanistan. He had OBL almost in sight and still failed to catch him.
At the time I predicted that OBL would never be caught as long as GW was in office! ESP? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif It didn't take long for OBL to be downgraded from enemy No 1 to 'he doesn't really concern me"- GW. ie Not that important!

What would be the reaction in Saudi Arabia if the US caught and executed a member of the Saudi Royal Family? [ its a pretty unstable country ]Do you think the Saudis would allow this to happen?

No chance.

The close relationship between the Bushes and the Saudi Royal family is well documented.

6 years and they still can't find the most recognisable man in the world? You can hardly hide that beard! /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q

pooltchr
09-27-2006, 04:07 AM
Aw, come on now, Q. You know GW can get BL anytime he wants to. He's just waiting until just before the election in 08 so the republicans can use it in their campaign.
The Clintons are the most highly visible people the Dems have. Bill had to come up with something publically to boost the Dems and deflect some of the sentiment that he did virtually nothing to fight terrorism during his 8 years in office. I keep going back to the 9-11 commission report...Clinton had plenty of opportunities to eliminate BL BEFORE THE ATTACK and failed to do so. It is documented in the report. Have you read it yet?
Steve

Qtec
09-27-2006, 04:22 AM
Clinton tried, GW didn't. GW was Pres, not Clinton when the 911 attacks occurred. GW dropped the ball and now he is claiming he got a bad pass from Bill.
The fact is that when GW was taking a long vacation, terrorist wanabe pilots were paying cash to fly in simulators for commercial aircraft!
DC was banging on the door and nobody was interested.

Q

pooltchr
09-27-2006, 06:29 AM
I have asked this question before, and you continue to ignore it...Have you personally read the 9-11 Commission Report? When you have, we can talk.
Steve

eg8r
09-27-2006, 06:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Clinton tried, GW didn't. <hr /></blockquote> No need for you to say anymore. No wonder people who don't participate in political discussions have the same opinion of you as the rest of us. When you start out with a bold-faced lie like this who is ever going to believe you. If you have no intentions of being honest at least state it up front.

eg8r

DickLeonard
09-27-2006, 06:45 AM
Eg8r your talking about Ronald Reagan testifying before Iran Contra investigations. He didn't perjure himself he just couldn't remember anything. The only thing he could do was read a script, if it wasn't in front of him he could never retrieve it from his brain.####

Nancy's favorite line "just tell them your doing all you can"

eg8r
09-27-2006, 07:04 AM
You are talking about the Clintons. They never remembered anything while in office and they only responded after carefully reading the poll results. If the pollster say it is a go, Clinton was all over it. The problem with this is while the Clinton survey team was out scoping for their hand picked sample to take the survey, OBL was digging in the ground and hiding again.

eg8r

DickLeonard
09-27-2006, 11:02 AM
Pooltchr you keep bringing up the 911 report. I wouldn't believe anything this administration put into words. Why would GWB tried his darndest to block the Investigation. If the 911 Widows didn't have Brass BallS there would never have been one. He fu**ked up because the warnings were there, they had to keep the paper shredders going for months.####

pooltchr
09-27-2006, 01:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote DickLeonard:</font><hr> Pooltchr you keep bringing up the 911 report. I wouldn't believe anything this administration put into words. Why would GWB tried his darndest to block the Investigation. <hr /></blockquote>

OK, let's think about this. IF GWB didn't want this investigation done, one would assume it was because the information in it might cast him in a bad light. Now that the report has been made public for anyone who wants to take the time to read it, you automatically decide it can't be correct. I take it from your response that you haven't bothered to actually read it. God forbid you actually read some facts rather than some left wing propaganda. Your mind is already made up, so any facts that go against what you believe must be wrong. Since you seem unwilling to actually find out the truth, let me sum it up for you is terms you might be able to understand.

Both administrations could have done more. Neither did everything they could to get BL. One administration did have more opportunities than the other, but neither gets a free pass.

We can't change the past, but we can learn from it. As long as we just try to point the finger at whichever party we don't agree with, we aren't learning a damn thing. Yeah, it would have been nice if Clinton had the ball$ to deal with it. It would have been nice if GW had given it a higher priority. But they didn't, and 9-11 happened. So how do we prevent another attack. Partisan politics isn't going to get it done. Washington seems to be pertetually in CYA mode. Don't do anything that might get you in trouble. So the response is Don't do anything! Don't do anything that might pi$$ of the Muslim community. Don't seal the boarders and pi$$ off Mexico. Don't deport illegal aliens and pi$$ of the hispanic community. Politicians won't do what's right, because someone isn't going to like it. So we just sit back and wait for the next attack. This country is in trouble, and it is our own fault. We have a country of people who think it's easier to blame the other party than to actually put some effort into becomming educated to the facts. We vote party lines, and the politicians vote party lines, and we all lose. Get over all the political BS. GW is not the enemy. Bill Clinton is not the enemy. Voters who refuse to accept responsibility are the problem.
Steve

Qtec
09-27-2006, 05:53 PM
I have read most of it and skimmed thru the rest. I read the facts and make my own conclusions - which are not always the same as the Commission's conclusions.

Q

Qtec
09-27-2006, 06:12 PM
If 9/11 had happened on Clinton's watch and he took all this vacation time you would want him crucified!
Your hatred of Clinton prevades your every post and demonstrates your closed-mindedness.! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Qtec
09-27-2006, 06:29 PM
He didn't want to know. GW was only ever going to do 2 things- cut taxes [ for his backers] and spend zillions on the military[ also helping his backers]. There is a video [ i will find it] of GW on vacation and he is asked what his plans were. He couldn't tell the guy one single concrete idea! All he could say was that he had a few initiatives! [ it might be fron MM's film?]

When GW became Pres, he/they said [ and this is a fact] that China was the big threat and the US needed missile defence! [ Star Wars! ] They were only interested in spending money. At this time both Condi Rice and Colin Powell said Iraq was contained and was not a threat! This is also a fact.
Suddenly, after 9/11 ,Iraq was more of a threat than OBL and Al Q. [ They got that one wrong!]
Q

Fran Crimi
09-27-2006, 08:18 PM
Wasn't it you who said don't bother to respond to them because they'll never change their mind, or was that Ed?

Fran

Qtec
09-28-2006, 03:26 AM
[ QUOTE ]
OK, let's think about this. IF GWB didn't want this investigation done, one would assume it was because the information in it might cast him in a bad light. <hr /></blockquote>

Fact. GW WAS against a 9/11 investigation! He wouldn't testify under oath or without Dick to hold his hand! He was against Condi testifying. They withheld 1,000s of documents and were generally uncooperative. [ remember the totally insignificant memo, a historical document LOL "Osama determined to strike the US".]
If it wasn't for the families of the victims making such a noise [ Jersey girls etc] there would have been no 9/11 Com at all.
Q

pooltchr
09-28-2006, 04:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Wasn't it you who said don't bother to respond to them because they'll never change their mind, or was that Ed?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

While I agree that nothing said here is going to change their minds, I don't think I said not to bother responding. I think we need to keep the lights on...it's up to the individual whether they want to see what is around them, or just close their eyes. We can always hope someone might peek. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Steve
Steve

Fran Crimi
09-28-2006, 05:44 AM
I'm just trying to remember who wrote that. I thought it was either you or Ed.


Fran

hondo
09-28-2006, 06:49 AM
It was me.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Wasn't it you who said don't bother to respond to them because they'll never change their mind, or was that Ed?

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

wolfdancer
09-28-2006, 07:33 AM
Steve, is there something that you, or Ed could write, that would undo all the damaging evidence that keeps surfacing?
I haven't read the 9/11 report, and don't intnd to. I gather from your posts that, for you, it completely exonerated GWB, and placed the blame on Clinton.
I'm more interested in this latest intelligence report....that while suppressed in it's greater part by the WH...is still somewhat revealing.....I'd rather peek at that

pooltchr
09-28-2006, 08:09 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I gather from your posts that, for you, it completely exonerated GWB, and placed the blame on Clinton.
<hr /></blockquote>

If you check back, you will see that I clearly stated that I didn't think it gave a free pass to either administration.
Steve

Fran Crimi
09-28-2006, 08:38 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I gather from your posts that, for you, it completely exonerated GWB, and placed the blame on Clinton.
<hr /></blockquote>

If you check back, you will see that I clearly stated that I didn't think it gave a free pass to either administration.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve,

I think it's honorable of you to try to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, unless I missed it, I've yet to see someone from the left here place any blame whatsoever on anyone other than a Republican. Do you see the double standard here? You're saying that there were problems in BOTH administrations is irrelevant to them. Their hatred has overtaken them and they continue to prove it over and over again, right here.

Fran

wolfdancer
09-28-2006, 09:09 AM
People not only read into things what they want to, it's been shown that what people write, even in jest, reveals something about them. Like this constant reference to hatred, for instance.......
Nobody that has done any reading with an open mind, about the events leading up to 9/11...can either fully blame, nor give a free pass to either President.
Both men relied on the intelligence service.
I do however think that GWB thought Saddam to be the greater threat, and directed the intelligence resources to focus on him.
I usually direct my political comments to "WalMart" Steve...because his replies are based on reason, and not just intolerance of the "left".
I think I fear Bush, more then I hate him, but hate comes easy, when I think of the lives lost, and the lives ruined,
all of which might have been avoided. There are at least two other countries that pose as big a threat to the U.S. as Iraq.....and yes, they DO have WMD's.

hondo
09-28-2006, 09:49 AM
Fran, I'm being very honest with this response.
It's funny how 2 groups can see things so differently.
I don't hate anybody but I feel, in my heart, that
Gw has led us down a destructive path.
To ME, it seems the exact opposite of what you say.
Tha Bushites appear to defend him , beyond the point
of credibility, no matter what evidence is presented.
Meanwhile, they seem to truly hate the Clintons.
Both sides on here both believe they are right and
stay in attack mode at all times.
I do hate that war. I don't think that makes me a wimp
or a traitor.
To ME, and that's just MY OPINION, you guys have bought
into the premise that Bush is trying to do the right
things and slowly succeeding. I respectfully do not
share your vision.
There is a huge gap in America right now &amp; to me it's getting worse. I just don't follow your way of thinking
and you don't follow mine.
I guess we'll have to wait &amp; see what happens.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr> I gather from your posts that, for you, it completely exonerated GWB, and placed the blame on Clinton.
<hr /></blockquote>

If you check back, you will see that I clearly stated that I didn't think it gave a free pass to either administration.
Steve <hr /></blockquote>

Steve,

I think it's honorable of you to try to keep an open mind. Unfortunately, unless I missed it, I've yet to see someone from the left here place any blame whatsoever on anyone other than a Republican. Do you see the double standard here? You're saying that there were problems in BOTH administrations is irrelevant to them. Their hatred has overtaken them and they continue to prove it over and over again, right here.

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
09-28-2006, 10:51 AM
Hey, it was you who lied not me.

eg8r

eg8r
09-28-2006, 10:55 AM
Nah, I don't think I said it but I might have. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif If all we have is a copy/paste then I usually don't bother. It is when they add the lies and partial truths when I chime in. You will notice this is mostly to Q, I have never met a person more full of it, except for Gayle.

eg8r

eg8r
09-28-2006, 10:57 AM
We have said it plenty of times but they are not reading. They are doom and gloom and all is bad because of W. Why would they even listen to a voice of reason.

eg8r

pooltchr
09-28-2006, 11:59 AM
Hondo,
For the record, I do not hate the Clintons. If you want to know what I think, well, I think Bill was pushed into the office by his wife. He never struck me as being that ambitious. More interested in cheeseburgers and young girls. As for Ms. Clinton, I am fearful of what she is capable of doing. Even Gayle agreed that she seems quite willing to put her own political agenda ahead of what is best for the country. Her "end justifies the means" mentality scares me. I believe she thinks she is above the average citizen, and considers the general population to be ignorant, and incapable of managing their own lives. I think she had more power as the first lady than we will ever know. And if she ever got the job herself, even the most liberal members of this forum would end up wishing we had GW back.
JMHO
Steve

wolfdancer
09-28-2006, 12:16 PM
Well stated.....
Here's why they hate Clinton so:
it's due to eroterie, or is that deuteronomy?
Anway, here is the reason:
web page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSVYkQoFADs&amp;mode=related&amp;search=)
And why they GWB is so respected among the faithful:
Dueteronomy 18:15-20, Mark 1:21-28
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people;
I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I
command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I
myself will hold accountable.

wolfdancer
09-28-2006, 12:25 PM
Well stated.....
Here's why they hate Clinton so:
it's due to eroterie, or is that deuteronomy?
Anway, here is the reason:
web page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSVYkQoFADs&amp;mode=related&amp;search=)
And why they GWB is so respected among the faithful:
Dueteronomy 18:15-20, Mark 1:21-28
I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people;
I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I
command. 19 Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I
myself will hold accountable.

hondo
09-28-2006, 01:39 PM
Great video, Wolfie. I bet the bushites wouldn't
even listen to the whole thing, let alone laugh.
And if Gw is the Anti-Christ, he doesn't have
quite the following Revalations predicted.
30% of Americans including Eg, Fran, Steve, Dee,
&amp; that new character from Va. plus Tony Blair.
The rest of the world hates him.

cushioncrawler
09-28-2006, 05:27 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> ......And if Gw is the Anti-Christ, he doesn't have quite the following Revalations predicted.... <hr /></blockquote>

Just my 2c worth on "anti-Christ" -- this iz allmost allways misunderstood -- it means someone who deputizes for Christ -- for instance, Bishops in the oldendayz were called anti-Christs, it meant that they assumed the role of Christ on earth -- and Bishops had an assistant who woz uzually called an anti-Bishop when the Bishop took hiz annual leave or hiz long-service leave. The Pope woz uzually called the anti-God -- ie he (she in one case) had more stars on hiz (her) shoulderz. Vicar iz nearnuff the same -- ie the Pope iz God's Vicar.

Anyhow -- to find an anti-Christ means that u havta look for someone who "claims" that they are "Christ-on-earth" -- not just someone who is called "Christ-on-earth" -- and not just someone who who iz "anti" something or other in the modern sense of "anti".
madMac.

Qtec
09-28-2006, 06:12 PM
Where is the lie? Clinton's responses to terrorism are well documented. What actions did GW take in the 9 months before 9/11?
He demoted D Clarke, America's terrorism expert and put him outside the loop.
Maybe Clinton could have done more but at least he did something.
Q

Qtec
09-28-2006, 07:27 PM
[ QUOTE ]
To ME, it seems the exact opposite of what you say.
Tha Bushites appear to defend him , beyond the point
of credibility, no matter what evidence is presented.
Meanwhile, they seem to truly hate the Clintons.
<hr /></blockquote>

Exactly on the mark Hondo.

Q......but will they see it? Are THEY /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif openminded enough? /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Drop1
09-28-2006, 07:30 PM
Why don't you read a little of John? Your explanation of antichrist,is total B.S. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif A little note,no one has been able to demonstrate that Christ ever existed,and that includes the deciples,and the apostoles. That being the case,there cannot be an antichrist,since christ never existed. Please,if you choose to answer this post,don't use the bible as a refrence,as it is the proof of nothing.

Drop1
09-28-2006, 07:52 PM
Come on Gayle was right on,and could back everything she wrote. The forum lost a great force for a free expression of ideas,when Gayle left. Who was the moron that wanted to vote on who could say what? Q is alright,but no fire. Wolfdancer is passing time,and you are passing gas./ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

cushioncrawler
09-29-2006, 01:33 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Why don't you read a little of John? Your explanation of antichrist,is total B.S. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif A little note,no one has been able to demonstrate that Christ ever existed,and that includes the deciples,and the apostoles. That being the case,there cannot be an antichrist,since christ never existed. Please,if you choose to answer this post,don't use the bible as a refrence,as it is the proof of nothing. <hr /></blockquote>
The way i see it, the question of whether God (or Christ) etc exists can usually be answered like this -- Your God, (and your Christ) could not possibly exist.

Me, myself, I am an Athiest -- but i have lots of books re religion and the Bible -- it woz a little phase that i went throo years ago -- i needed to know more about the bullshit.

My little posting about "the" anti-Christ woz simply meant to help everyone discuss a Biblical term in its proper Biblical context -- even tho i agree that it iz all bullshit -- it (John A) (or woz it John B) might have had relevance in thoze dayz, but haz zero relevance in 2006.

If we go a little deeper, "the beast" iz an even more troubled term than "the anti-Christ" -- but i wont go into this -- suffice to say that if u wanted to ring the phone next to where i am sitting, u would need to dial 0353***616 -- note here "the mark of the beast".
hahahaHHAAHHHHAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA.

eg8r
09-29-2006, 02:44 AM
I singled out the lie in my first reply to you. It was the first sentence of your previous post. Stating Clinton did something about OBL and W did not is a lie.

eg8r

eg8r
09-29-2006, 02:48 AM
Yeah, well you keep patting her back, someone needs to. Gayle was the last person on earth to be a "force for a free expression of ideas". She is the Ann Coulter of the left and she definitly had no time for anyone's ideas that were in opposition to hers.

I don't remember who asked to vote on what, but if you are into the name calling again, why don't you figure it out yourself.

eg8r

eg8r
09-29-2006, 02:51 AM
[ QUOTE ]
And if Gw is the Anti-Christ, he doesn't have
quite the following Revalations predicted.
<hr /></blockquote> Only one can be true, W is the antichrist or the Book of Revelations.

eg8r

hondo
09-29-2006, 05:05 AM
Interesting. May I ask your source for that interpretation
of anti- ?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> ......And if Gw is the Anti-Christ, he doesn't have quite the following Revalations predicted.... <hr /></blockquote>

Just my 2c worth on "anti-Christ" -- this iz allmost allways misunderstood -- it means someone who deputizes for Christ -- for instance, Bishops in the oldendayz were called anti-Christs, it meant that they assumed the role of Christ on earth -- and Bishops had an assistant who woz uzually called an anti-Bishop when the Bishop took hiz annual leave or hiz long-service leave. The Pope woz uzually called the anti-God -- ie he (she in one case) had more stars on hiz (her) shoulderz. Vicar iz nearnuff the same -- ie the Pope iz God's Vicar.

Anyhow -- to find an anti-Christ means that u havta look for someone who "claims" that they are "Christ-on-earth" -- not just someone who is called "Christ-on-earth" -- and not just someone who who iz "anti" something or other in the modern sense of "anti".
madMac. <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
09-29-2006, 05:19 AM
There is nothing wrong with favoring one point of view over the other. I've had so many conversations with friends and I've always tried to keep an open mind and always conceeded points where I felt their arguments made sense. However, there is no reciprocation by people of the left. They do not acknowledge ANYTHING that is sensible and logical put forth by a Republican. One can only surmise that it is not the subject matter as much as it is their hatred for the party that takes precedence. It's so damned obvious. Ask yourself when the last time was that you conceded a point. You don't. You know it all. Forget my lobbyist post. That was non partisan.

Fran

hondo
09-29-2006, 05:19 AM
There are a few references by historians to Christo
who had a following. Also, Paul is a historical
figure who was willing to give his life to spread
the word. With Christ we're talking about a limited
area that he was in; thus, historians either never
heard of him during his life or failed to see his
significance.
As his followers continued to spread the good word
after his death ( and ascension as I believe) his
notoriety, if you will, stated to spread.
Something happened to these people of the time
who gave their lives to start a movement. Why, if he
didn't exist?


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Why don't you read a little of John? Your explanation of antichrist,is total B.S. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif A little note,no one has been able to demonstrate that Christ ever existed,and that includes the deciples,and the apostoles. That being the case,there cannot be an antichrist,since christ never existed. Please,if you choose to answer this post,don't use the bible as a refrence,as it is the proof of nothing. <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
09-29-2006, 05:23 AM
Incoherent post. ???????????????


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
And if Gw is the Anti-Christ, he doesn't have
quite the following Revalations predicted.
<hr /></blockquote> Only one can be true, W is the antichrist or the Book of Revelations.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
09-29-2006, 05:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> A little note,no one has been able to demonstrate that Christ ever existed, <hr /></blockquote>

A little note, no one has been able to demonstrate that Christ never existed either.

Steve

hondo
09-29-2006, 05:54 AM
Again, with all due respect, I feel the exact opposite
is true. I haven't seen the bushites concede on one
issue. Some will say they don't like Bush either
but it comes across as half-hearted lip service.
It looks like we're at an impasse, Fran.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> There is nothing wrong with favoring one point of view over the other. I've had so many conversations with friends and I've always tried to keep an open mind and always conceeded points where I felt their arguments made sense. However, there is no reciprocation by people of the left. They do not acknowledge ANYTHING that is sensible and logical put forth by a Republican. One can only surmise that it is not the subject matter as much as it is their hatred for the party that takes precedence. It's so damned obvious. Ask yourself when the last time was that you conceded a point. You don't. You know it all. Forget my lobbyist post. That was non partisan.

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
09-29-2006, 05:55 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> -- Your God, (and your Christ) could not possibly exist.

Me, myself, I am an Athiest -- <hr /></blockquote>

One of the great things about this country is that everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. This included your personal beliefs.

I would only add one thought. If you are correct, it really doesn't matter...but if you are wrong...it's going to matter a great deal.
Steve

Fran Crimi
09-29-2006, 06:03 AM
Baloney. What do you think prompted this exchange? Was it something Steve said??? Hello, anybody home? LOL

My, what a short memory you have. Sheesh!

Fran

hondo
09-29-2006, 06:19 AM
Well, since you chose to respond in that fashion
I will say that all you genius on the Bush side
are going to look back one of these days when
our kids have no future because of the deficit,
chaos reigns because of his lack of understanding
of the world, science breakthroughs stalled, personal
rights eroded, and say my God what has that man done!
Say bullshit all you want. You're blind.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Baloney. What do you think prompted this exchange? Was it something Steve said??? Hello, anybody home? LOL

My, what a short memory you have. Sheesh!

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
09-29-2006, 06:26 AM
Oh, I get it now. You see nothing wrong with accusing me of getting my information from fictional TV shows but when I catch you on a misstep and joke about it, you get all sensitive. Awwwwww...I'm sowwy for hoiting your feewings.

Deeman3
09-29-2006, 06:32 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Well, since you chose to respond in that fashion
I will say that all you genius on the Bush side
are going to look back one of these days when
our kids have no future because of the deficit,
chaos reigns because of his lack of understanding
of the world, science breakthroughs stalled, personal
rights eroded, and say my God what has that man done!
Say bullshit all you want. You're blind.

<font color="blue"> We may look back on these days and the last 30 years where the education system let our kids down, the moral values made drive-by shooters out of our children and where the "ban God, nothing is out of bounds" crowd lead us to an completely uncompetitive position in the world and not a single presidency where a few bad decisions may have been made that were then used as full excuses for the last few decades of decline. </font color>

DeeMan

hondo
09-29-2006, 06:38 AM
You were joking? Sorry. Do me a favor. Don't try
doing stand-up fo a living.


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Oh, I get it now. You see nothing wrong with accusing me of getting my information from fictional TV shows but when I catch you on a misstep and joke about it, you get all sensitive. Awwwwww...I'm sowwy for hoiting your feewings. <hr /></blockquote>

Fran Crimi
09-29-2006, 06:43 AM
Hey I really enjoyed the chat, Hondo. Let's do it again sometime, but now I really have to go perform my womanly duties and make eggplant parmagianna.

And you don't get any. There! Take that!

Fran

hondo
09-29-2006, 06:43 AM
I certainly agree with the first part. The knife
was in us. GW just stuck it quite a bit further in.
We can debate this all we want. I pesonally hope
I'm dead wrong and that you guys are right.
What pleasure would I get out of seeing my kids'
future destroyed?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> Well, since you chose to respond in that fashion
I will say that all you genius on the Bush side
are going to look back one of these days when
our kids have no future because of the deficit,
chaos reigns because of his lack of understanding
of the world, science breakthroughs stalled, personal
rights eroded, and say my God what has that man done!
Say bullshit all you want. You're blind.

<font color="blue"> We may look back on these days and the last 30 years where the education system let our kids down, the moral values made drive-by shooters out of our children and where the "ban God, nothing is out of bounds" crowd lead us to an completely uncompetitive position in the world and not a single presidency where a few bad decisions may have been made that were then used as full excuses for the last few decades of decline. </font color>

DeeMan <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
09-29-2006, 06:46 AM
Hey, didn't I agree with you on something the other
day? Just one little plate. Please?

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Hey I really enjoyed the chat, Hondo. Let's do it again sometime, but now I really have to go perform my womanly duties and make eggplant parmagianna.

And you don't get any. There! Take that!

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Drop1
09-29-2006, 11:39 AM
Wow a mean streak in eg8r. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif Try regain your self composure,and tell me,in all nine hundred posts have I ever called an idiot an idiot. I have been called a idiot,I have been told to crawl back under a rock,but you know what later these people became friends. Try love,you will be a better person,and not so full of hate for people you disagree with. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Drop1
09-29-2006, 11:49 AM
Sorry no cigar. Check the year 325 AD. prior to this year,there were twenty nine versions of the Bible enjoy.

Drop1
09-29-2006, 11:57 AM
I'm not looking for someone who never existed,I think that would fall to the people who believe, to prove the existence of their Christ.

hondo
09-29-2006, 11:58 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Drop1:</font><hr> Sorry no cigar. Check the year 325 AD. prior to this year,there were twenty nine versions of the Bible enjoy. <hr /></blockquote>

Honestly, Drop, what does that prove? Sure there
were a lot of WRITINGS the council had to sort
through. You're just tossing random stuff out here,
half of which you're making up.

Qtec
09-29-2006, 12:53 PM
You read the 9/11 report. Is there any truth in the rumour that Sudan offered the US OBL but Clinton refused to take him? [ eg8r loves to use this quote to demonstrate Clinton's apparent apathy in catching OBL.]

BTW, If anyone reads my original post they will see that my reference was to the relationship between politicians and the media.
BC is now being attacked now for speaking his mind and being too emotional!
The 2nd video shows Frist as a cold fish, mouthing RNC talking points and NEVER answering the question.

Remember that guy who wanted to build a tower to the Heavens? Tower of Babel?
Anyway, the Democrats at the time said,
" this is never going to work ".
The Reps, loyal to THEIR King/Pres said,
" We are not going to cut and run now! Anyone advocating this negativity is obviously a traitor to the Com in Chief and is aiding the enemy. [ ie in this case gravity. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif]

OBL is still making videos.
The Taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan.
Iraq is a mess and in a state of civil war, if not anarchy.
Its now official that the world is a much more dangerous place and we are not safer!
But hey, lets not point the finger the GOPs say, lets not play the blame game............And then they try to blame Clinton for 9/11 ?????????????
An open-minded person must see the hypocracy in this.

Q

Deeman3
09-29-2006, 02:25 PM
Q,
I think science has adequately proved that in the year the Tower was built, Heaven was officially only 65 feet in the air. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

DeeMan

cushioncrawler
09-29-2006, 04:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> -- Your God, (and your Christ) could not possibly exist. Me, myself, I am an Athiest -- <hr /></blockquote>

One of the great things about this country is that everyone is free to believe what they want to believe. This included your personal beliefs. I would only add one thought. If you are correct, it really doesn't matter... but if you are wrong...it's going to matter a great deal. Steve <hr /></blockquote>
(Hi Steve) -- Funny thing, my billiards mate from Sydney often vizits and stays with me for a week -- he iz a Biblist, ie he believes every word of the Bible -- its allwayz an interesting week. (madMac).

cushioncrawler
09-29-2006, 04:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote hondo:</font><hr> .... Interesting. May I ask your source for that interpretation of anti- ?.... <hr /></blockquote>
I googled "antichrist vicar bishop pope" -- this gave lots of very interesting stuff -- the biblelight.net/666 site was the main one i think.

wolfdancer
09-29-2006, 06:43 PM
Q, check this out........ web page (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/27/keith-olbermann-takes-a-look-back-at-bushs-first-months-in-office-leading-up-to-911)
I haven't read anything more "disturbing" then this...Snakebyte forwarded it to me.

Drop1
09-29-2006, 06:55 PM
Hondo,what part is made up. It might seem I'm throwing out stuff,but the search for the historic Jesus,has been going on for a couple hundred years. I feel no need to prove Christ ever existed,and for that matter,we can throw God and the Devil in with that. Be content with your beliefs,and continue your stand off with Fran. You know,there are documents refering to Jesus twenty two times in the Koran,and there is a mountain named after St.Thomas,in Madras India where it is alleged he was killed. The problem is the scholarship. Ok I threw a couple of things out there,make of them what you will.

Drop1
09-29-2006, 07:19 PM
The article under religion,called "Jesus Camp" scares me more,than finding support, for what all us left wing cut and run wimps already know. Bush and Rice are B. Sers. Jesus Camp gets five year old kids to cry for their sins,and speak in tounges out of fear. Is that what America is about?

Qtec
10-02-2006, 03:52 AM
Woodward.
[ QUOTE ]
The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention.

Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review.

The report of such a meeting takes on heightened importance after former president Bill Clinton said this week that the Bush team did not do enough to try to kill Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said her husband would have paid more attention to warnings of a possible attack than Bush did. Rice fired back on behalf of the current president, saying the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in eight months as President Clinton had been in eight years.

The July 10 meeting of Rice, Tenet and Black went unmentioned in various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, and Woodward wrote that Black "felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."

Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it."

White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with Woodward's portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response.

"This is the first time these thoughts and feelings associated with that meeting have been expressed," McCormack said. "People are free to revise and extend their remarks, but that is certainly not the story that was told to the 9/11 commission."

Tenet and Black did not respond to messages yesterday.
<hr /></blockquote>

How can Condi still say that the memo 'OBL determined to attack the US' was a historical document when Tenet warned her personally!?

Imagine you were in Condi's shoes. Clarke who has worked for 4 Presidents and is a very, very well respected man and Tenet, the head of the CIA, are telling you America is a target and its going to happen soon. Two experts who know infinitly more than you do about this subject [ terrorism etc ,] what do you do.
Ignore them?
Lets not forget we are talking about the security of the USA. Any threat should be taken seriously, especially when your top guys are banging on the door ..

There is no doubt that the Govt ignored the warnings from their own intelligence experts.

Q...more fodder for the conspiracy theorists!

eg8r
10-02-2006, 10:46 AM
[ QUOTE ]
BC is now being attacked now for speaking his mind and being too emotional!
<hr /></blockquote> I wonder if he will be vacationing with Tom Cruise?

[ QUOTE ]
Remember that guy who wanted to build a tower to the Heavens? Tower of Babel?
Anyway, the Democrats at the time said,
" this is never going to work ".
The Reps, loyal to THEIR King/Pres said,
" We are not going to cut and run now! Anyone advocating this negativity is obviously a traitor to the Com in Chief and is aiding the enemy. [ ie in this case gravity. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif ]
<hr /></blockquote> You mean language barrier right? /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2006, 10:49 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Try regain your self composure,and tell me,in all nine hundred posts have I ever called an idiot an idiot. <hr /></blockquote> I don't understand why are asking the question (I blame it on being a Monday). I just went back and read the post of mine which you have responded to (the one where I once again correctly call Gayle the Ann Coulter of the left) and no where did I say you called an idiot an idiot.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2006, 10:54 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Again, with all due respect, I feel the exact opposite
is true. I haven't seen the bushites concede on one
issue. <hr /></blockquote> Well, you are either deaf, dumb or blind then. Many from the right have stated just how moderate Bush is. Look at his horrible spending issues. The man is spending more than any other person on the planet, more than anyone has ever before. He has put us in pretty deep debt. He is weak in reducing funding to all the arts. He has reduced taxes some but he never did reduce any of the current spending. His budget cuts were only on future spending instead of cutting spending programs currently bleeding this country dry.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2006, 10:59 AM
I thought you wouldn't understand.

eg8r

eg8r
10-02-2006, 11:05 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not looking for someone who never existed,I think that would fall to the people who believe, to prove the existence of their Christ. <hr /></blockquote> I disagree. Those who believe have no need to prove Christ ever existed, it is their faith that proves it to them. However, if by existed you mean actually step on the earth and walked with man, then you are also wrong, it was Jesus who came to earth. Now they are one in the same however, the little technicality is there anyways. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

hondo
10-02-2006, 11:13 AM
Sorry ,eg, didn't remember you saying all that.
You're absolutely right ,of course. ( about Bush, that is)
As for all your name calling, I've come to expect
nothing less from you. You've shown your class to me
several times on here.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
Again, with all due respect, I feel the exact opposite
is true. I haven't seen the bushites concede on one
issue. <hr /></blockquote> Well, you are either deaf, dumb or blind then. Many from the right have stated just how moderate Bush is. Look at his horrible spending issues. The man is spending more than any other person on the planet, more than anyone has ever before. He has put us in pretty deep debt. He is weak in reducing funding to all the arts. He has reduced taxes some but he never did reduce any of the current spending. His budget cuts were only on future spending instead of cutting spending programs currently bleeding this country dry.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

hondo
10-02-2006, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> I thought you wouldn't understand.

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

Au contraire, my war-loving little buddy, I think
I understand you quite well.

hondo
10-02-2006, 11:18 AM
I think I agree with you on this one but I'm having
trouble with your comma splices &amp; pronoun antecedents.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> &lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
I'm not looking for someone who never existed,I think that would fall to the people who believe, to prove the existence of their Christ. <hr /></blockquote> I disagree. Those who believe have no need to prove Christ ever existed, it is their faith that proves it to them. However, if by existed you mean actually step on the earth and walked with man, then you are also wrong, it was Jesus who came to earth. Now they are one in the same however, the little technicality is there anyways. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r <hr /></blockquote>

DickLeonard
10-02-2006, 11:34 AM
Eg8r I have always maintained that our government trying to recruit agents against Iraq tipped off OBL and brought us 911. That and Bush's being so tight with the Saudi Royal family he knew that the US troops would not be removed from Saudia Arabia even though the the Saudi regime is as bad as Saddam's. ####

wolfdancer
10-02-2006, 04:33 PM
This is my take on Ed's replies:
I could post that green apples are good, and some green apples are, but Ed would belong to the Red apple majority group, and launch some kind of personal, insulting attack. It wouldn't dispute the fact that Granny Smith's Green apples are pretty good....and he might even claim it was a liberal what gave Eve her apple to eat....and then i'd have to come back with the fact that it was another predatory Republican that gave Snow White her apple.
And in the end, the only thing that would be proved is that Ed doesn't know apples from oranges.....and it's useless, it's pointless, it's futile...to take the bait....and respond to him.

Righty
10-03-2006, 12:14 AM
Unbelievable.....absoloutely astonishing. Fran Crimi, pooltchr, eg8r, are you really THAT [censored] STUPID? I can't believe this. Pooltchr, watch the [censored] video. Watch it, comprehend it. Clinton does not lie, not a single one of you can prove that Clinton lied about anything in the interview. Everything he gave was facts. Each one of you has a filter in your brain. You only keep the information you WANT to know. The rest you discard.

Get it thru your THICK [censored] SKULLS, 9/11 IS NOT CLINTONS FAULT!!! YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC MORONS...THE NEOCONS BASHED CLINTON SAYING HE WAS TOO OBSESSED WITH KILLING BIN LADEN. NOW THEY SAY HE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH? DOES THAT EVEN [censored] REGISTER IN YOUR BRAINS? POOLTCHR, IF YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE USA IS [censored] TO HELL, AND GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY?

[censored] NUMBSKULLS! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR FILTHY LIES. QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE HORRIBLE FAILURES OF THE BUSH ADMIN! DAMN YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

RIDICULOUS, YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. RETARDS.

pooltchr
10-03-2006, 05:05 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Righty:</font><hr> Unbelievable.....absoloutely astonishing. Fran Crimi, pooltchr, eg8r, are you really THAT [censored] STUPID? I can't believe this. Pooltchr, watch the [censored] video. Watch it, comprehend it. Clinton does not lie, not a single one of you can prove that Clinton lied about anything in the interview. Everything he gave was facts. Each one of you has a filter in your brain. You only keep the information you WANT to know. The rest you discard.

Get it thru your THICK [censored] SKULLS, 9/11 IS NOT CLINTONS FAULT!!! YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC MORONS...THE NEOCONS BASHED CLINTON SAYING HE WAS TOO OBSESSED WITH KILLING BIN LADEN. NOW THEY SAY HE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH? DOES THAT EVEN [censored] REGISTER IN YOUR BRAINS? POOLTCHR, IF YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE USA IS [censored] TO HELL, AND GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY?

[censored] NUMBSKULLS! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR FILTHY LIES. QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE HORRIBLE FAILURES OF THE BUSH ADMIN! DAMN YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

RIDICULOUS, YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. RETARDS. <hr /></blockquote>

Thank you for a well thought out, articulate, and intelligent response. It's always nice to see newbees join the discussions here, particularly when they don't feel a need to resort to name-calling to make a point. Glad you have joined us to share your insight.
/ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Steve

hondo
10-03-2006, 05:25 AM
Hey, Righty, why don't you tell us how you really
feel? LMFAO!


<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Righty:</font><hr> Unbelievable.....absoloutely astonishing. Fran Crimi, pooltchr, eg8r, are you really THAT [censored] STUPID? I can't believe this. Pooltchr, watch the [censored] video. Watch it, comprehend it. Clinton does not lie, not a single one of you can prove that Clinton lied about anything in the interview. Everything he gave was facts. Each one of you has a filter in your brain. You only keep the information you WANT to know. The rest you discard.

Get it thru your THICK [censored] SKULLS, 9/11 IS NOT CLINTONS FAULT!!! YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC MORONS...THE NEOCONS BASHED CLINTON SAYING HE WAS TOO OBSESSED WITH KILLING BIN LADEN. NOW THEY SAY HE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH? DOES THAT EVEN [censored] REGISTER IN YOUR BRAINS? POOLTCHR, IF YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE USA IS [censored] TO HELL, AND GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY?

[censored] NUMBSKULLS! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR FILTHY LIES. QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE HORRIBLE FAILURES OF THE BUSH ADMIN! DAMN YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

RIDICULOUS, YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. RETARDS. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
10-03-2006, 05:47 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think I agree with you on this one but I'm having
trouble with your comma splices &amp; pronoun antecedents.
<hr /></blockquote> Well, if that is all you found wrong with the post, I can live with it. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Fran Crimi
10-03-2006, 06:10 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Quote Righty: Clinton does not lie.... <hr /></blockquote>

I think Hillary might disagree with that one above.


So what's the game here...Trying to get everybody riled up?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote Righty: Clinton is scum, so is Hillary, so are 90% of most liberals. <hr /></blockquote>

So what's the deal? Is Clinton a scum who never tells a lie? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran~~~Your local neighborhood "hopeless stupid retard"

DickLeonard
10-03-2006, 07:35 AM
Eg8r but the top 15% got their tax cut. Only a total idiot would give a tax cut and then go to war, but I guess that is what we got. Unless his plan was to bankrupt the country then we got a Mad Mann.####

eg8r
10-03-2006, 02:07 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Eg8r but the top 15% got their tax cut. Only a total idiot would give a tax cut and then go to war, but I guess that is what we got. Unless his plan was to bankrupt the country then we got a Mad Mann.#### <hr /></blockquote> History will tell, but remember we were bankrupt long long long before W ever took office. W has definitely pushed us deeper.

eg8r

nAz
10-03-2006, 02:23 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Righty:</font><hr> Unbelievable.....absoloutely astonishing. Fran Crimi, pooltchr, eg8r, are you really THAT [censored] STUPID? I can't believe this. Pooltchr, watch the [censored] video. Watch it, comprehend it. Clinton does not lie, not a single one of you can prove that Clinton lied about anything in the interview. Everything he gave was facts. Each one of you has a filter in your brain. You only keep the information you WANT to know. The rest you discard.

Get it thru your THICK [censored] SKULLS, 9/11 IS NOT CLINTONS FAULT!!! YOU STUPID, IDIOTIC MORONS...THE NEOCONS BASHED CLINTON SAYING HE WAS TOO OBSESSED WITH KILLING BIN LADEN. NOW THEY SAY HE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH? DOES THAT EVEN [censored] REGISTER IN YOUR BRAINS? POOLTCHR, IF YOU THINK THE PRESIDENT CAN DO ANYTHING, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY THE USA IS [censored] TO HELL, AND GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY?

[censored] NUMBSKULLS! I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR FILTHY LIES. QUIT BLAMING CLINTON FOR THE HORRIBLE FAILURES OF THE BUSH ADMIN! DAMN YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID.

RIDICULOUS, YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. RETARDS. <hr /></blockquote>

lol you forgot to mention Deeman /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Deeman3
10-03-2006, 03:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote nAz:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Righty:</font><hr>

RIDICULOUS, YOU PEOPLE ARE HOPELESS. RETARDS. <hr /></blockquote>

lol you forgot to mention Deeman /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif <hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> He knows that the DeeMan is fair and balanced, that he considers all sides of an issue carefully before deciding and that, most of all, DeeMan carries a gun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

DeeMan
Don't make me have to hunt you down......

pooltchr
10-03-2006, 05:09 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr> , most of all, DeeMan carries a gun. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif</font color>

DeeMan
Don't make me have to hunt you down...... <hr /></blockquote>

I guess you 'Bama boys have a much worse (better) rep than us Carolina boys. Obviously, I don't scare him! /ccboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif
Steve

Gayle in MD
10-08-2006, 03:13 AM
Steve, my hat goes off to you that you are taking the time to read the 9/11 report, but, may I say, that atleast three of those on the commission, have admitted that some important questions were not asked, and that with a new administration launching, they had many concerns over throwing a divisional, accusatory, bad light on the administration, after our country had suffered such a horrendous attack.

I saw the way the survivors of the 9/11 victims were treated by Republicans while Republicans were trying to block any investigation into how our great country could have suffered such an attack. The effort to block such an important investigation, in and of itself, was irresponsible, and one of the most destructive, and dangerous, uncaring acts I can imagine.

Now that we know, that in an unprecedented attempt to prevent any attack on our soil, that George Tenent, and Cofer Black demanded an emergency meeting with Rice, actually jumped in a car and rushed to the White House, calling her office enroute, and she never bothered to act onm or even follow up on, their emergency warnings about an impending alQaeda attack "Inside the United States," I find it unbelievable that people would persevere to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11. This administration had, literally months to investigate, what were unique and unprecedented warnings, resulting from an excellent format for deterrence, designed by Bill Clinton, and they turned their backs, and did nothing! Since then, they have had unprecedented, unique, unhampered opportunities to get bin Laden, and they have turned their backs.

The 9/11 report, is far from being a comprehensive compilation of factual information on the lead up to the attack. The unprecedented warnings, memos, numbers of intel agents trying to get the Bush administration to listen, and take action, along with the fact that with just a little bit of action, it would have been very easy to check on two known alQaeda, buying ten tickets, for four different flights, on the same day, there is no doubt in my mind, and the minds of many journalists who have investigated, and written on this subject, that Bush, Rice, and Tenet are, above all others, responsible for alQaeda's successful attacks on 9/11.

Many of the systems which allowed for these warnings, and many of the people who were actually hooked on getting bin Laden, were put into place by none other than Bill Clinton. But, the Bush administration, made it very clear upon thier arrival into power, that they were not interested in "Swating flies"...the message was, we don't want to hear it, if it isn't about Iraq. There were literally dozens of people in the National Security, and Intelligence communities, convinced, that the attack was coming, coming soon, and some, that NY and Washington would be involved, and hi-jacked planes, flown into buildings, one of which, formally with the FBI, who threw up his hands and took the top security position at the WTC, in an effort to help people to escape what he KNEW was coming. There were, in spite of what you are reading in the 9/11 report, which I, too, have read, many people who knew what was coming, many warnings by those people, many opportunities for Bush to prevent it, and no urgent interest in alQaeda, of any kind.

Had this administration continued with Clinton's operations, and regular schedule of meetings regarding alQaeda, and listened to Richard Clarke, and some other top level agents, instead of taking office with a determination to throw out everything Clinton, everything democratic, everything that had been gained through much hard work, and epertise, the 9/11 attack could very well have been prevented.

I believe, if you were to add some of the information available in books like Woodward's, Clarke's, atleast a dozen factual books, written by respected journalists, even you would agree. The 9/11 commission, didn't even hear about the emergency trip to Rice's office that day, months before 9/11, nor did they see all of the intelligence evidence of warnings. In short, the 9/11 commission, was a whitewash, which protected this administration from accountability, just as the current majority in Congress, has protected them, not because they didn't try to get to the truth, but because the truth was so stealthily hidden.

Gayle in Md.