"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for
the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.


Quoting from Wiki:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional
statement
of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed
following the Gulf War and
3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee
you
he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"

Bush lied?

yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton

and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's
in iraq.

clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq.

you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe:

-obama's been president for 9 years
-clinton invaded iraq

amazing what you'll believe


*I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out
of the sand
and get a eyeful of reality.

Obama is.

Eisboch



Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep
trying.


I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US
policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just
happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and
signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Eisboch

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

I have never "defended" Bush without reservation. I have, on occasion,
expressed support for some of Obama's initiatives. I don't agree with much
of how he is trying to accomplish them however.

The first step to getting this country back on track is to stop the stupid
finger pointing.

Eisboch

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


Quoting from Wiki:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional
statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed
into law by President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed
following the Gulf War and
3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee
you he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"

Bush lied?

Bush invaded Iraq in 1998? If he had, his argument about WMD might of
been accurate. The question remains, did Saddam have WMD in 2003? As it
was, in 1998, when Clinton bombed Iraq in Operation Desert Fox,
Republicans were claiming it was to distract the country from Clinton's
impeachment trial. Remember Wag the Dog?



Yes I do. I have some strong opinions/conclusions in my mind about how we
ended up in Iraq, but they aren't important
to anyone other than me.

I think there is an incredibly strong push from both political sides to
simplify a complex issue into a ****ing contest for votes.
It's sickening, and the influence has spread to affect many people's
thinking. Or non-thinking. It serves to do nothing but divide the country
into a simple "left" or "right" persuasion. I've never seen anything like
it in my 60 years on this planet.

It's why I strum guitars now.

Eisboch

In article ,
says...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:44:12 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...


So, when a group makes an error and admits it, that means it's ok for
the
group that perpetrated the hoax to get off the hook.


Quoting from Wiki:

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 is a United States Congressional
statement
of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[ It was signed into law by
President Bill Clinton.

The Act found that between 1980 and 1998 Iraq had:

1.. committed various and significant violations of International Law,
2.. had failed to comply with the obligations to which it had agreed
following the Gulf War and
3.. further had ignored Resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council.
"He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an
arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee
you
he'll use the arsenal.... President Clinton ~ 1998"

Bush lied?

yeah. because he was president AFTER clinton

and he had evidence...which he disregarded...that there were NO WMD's
in iraq.

clinton sent ZERO troops into iraq.

you right wingers....so let's summarize what you believe:

-obama's been president for 9 years
-clinton invaded iraq

amazing what you'll believe


*I* believe that it's time for most of you lefties to pull your head out
of the sand
and get a eyeful of reality.

Obama is.

Eisboch



Basically, you have no argument other than "it was Clinton's fault." Keep
trying.


I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US
policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just
happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and
signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Eisboch

You can tell the pink army that forever, they know, it's just not productive
for them to tell the truth in matters like this. They have seen the videos,
they have read the reports, they just can't bring themselves to have an honest
debate.

Scotty

On 14/02/2010 6:30 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 14/02/2010 2:56 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:53:20 -0700,
wrote:

On 14/02/2010 12:50 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:30:11 -0500, John H
wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/yhsqavk

actually he's not.

US troops are entering an area where terrorists are hiding behind
civilians

and no one killed more civilians than bush.

look at the hundreds of thousands dead in iraq


So is it OK that Obama does it because he is black or is it democrat?

LMAO...liberals are pathetic at rationalization.

and right wingers are great at cowardice. they murder hundreds of
thousands in a useless war

then complain about a president who IS trying to protect america.

figures

I would say if I was Osama Bin Laden, I would put the quiet word out to
leave Obama alone, he is doing the work of Islam by taking down the
affluent infidels of America. He is doing more damage than we could ever
do.

Obama's economic advice is obviously tainted by a toxic liberal-statism
big government. Quite predictable actually. With a study of Obama, the
fast track boy appealed to democrat, liberal statists and shot to the top
without ever having been to a baseball game before the age of 12.

Yet people fail to see correlations in the corruption and mesiah madness.
The same crap Adolph Hitler pulled in the earlier years, Obama is doing
today. Good at deflecting blame for alterior motives. But if I was an
American, I would seriously question the deterioration of values of the US
government itself.

Go ahead, be a good little sheeple and follow Obama to hell. The road to
hell is paved with good intentions and you will have lots of company.
Because as much as I don't like the idea, I can't see this depression
ending soon and even if it abates for a bit, it will not last long.

Bad debtors always go down, the only question is how many good people it
takes with it.


You just love the terrorists don't you. Why not just say it. It'll make you
feel better.

Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to prosperity.

I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings
a song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:40:05 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:





I made no such argument. All I did was quote Wiki as to the origins of US
policy for regime change in Iraq. It did not start with Bush. He just
happened to carry out the unanimously approved policy by the Senate and
signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton.

Eisboch

and yet clinton sent precisely

zero

troops to iraq.

go figure

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:50:15 -0500, I am Tosk
wrote:



You can tell the pink army that forever, they know, it's just not productive
for them to tell the truth in matters like this. They have seen the videos,
they have read the reports, they just can't bring themselves to have an honest
debate.



how many troops did you say clinton sent to iraq?

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.

On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 06:16:23 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:



Have a better explanation for why all of a sudden the government can
spend it's way out of debt to prosperity? What economic theory is this?
Bankruptcy?

it's called 'keynesian' economics. and it's on pretty solid
foundations.

and our debt service after ALL the money is spent over the next 10
years?

3.4%

debt burden under george bush the first?

3.4%

gee. i guess canuck doesn't know that

3.4=3.4.


Think about the logic of Obama's policy, how insane it is. Debt-spend
to prosperity.

yeah. let's go back to the policies in the 1930's when we had 25%
unemployment, right?


I can assure you that if you are in debt and have problems with debt,
the last thing you do to fix it is borrow more and spend it on ****.

But will admit Obama be like the Pied Piper. Has a good talk and sings
a song. When are you ordering the jack boots?

jack boots? i love it when the right forgets that bush arrested and
tortured american citzens on american soil , and wanted to suspend
habeas corpus

THEN calls obama a fascist socialist...however that works

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:54:56 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...



And, Clinton invaded Iraq when? And, Bush claimed that WMDs where where?
Bush listened to Clinton about anything??? Keep defending Bush. You're
doing so well!




Please read previous response.

Why do people like yourself automatically jump to the conclusion that a
statement of fact that may illuminate a broader influence on a
controversial
subject means that the author of that statement is a "rightie" or Bush
supporter? This is exactly the type of current political animosity that
has divided this country. Now-a-days you are either left or right
apparently. There's no middle ground anymore.

because it's an obvious distortion. no one cares what clinton thought
because he didn't invade iraq. and he may have been WRONG but bush
LIED.

so you guys just keep ignoring the FACTS and SPIN them to make it
look like bush was nothing more than some guy who worked for clinton.



That's a really strange and weird interpretation of what I said
however it furthers my point.

This place has gone to hell in a handbasket. No point in further
discussion.

Eisboch