Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home Register FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 11-22-2012, 10:01 AM   #31
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I'm not a glaring hypocrit.
Personally, I think your the biggest hypocrit on this site. Whenever you see something you don't like that you think is done by a liberal you start crying and attribute it to all liberals (Infact, John has had to repeatedly tell you to stop doing that). Yet when something is done by a conserv. and someone attributes it to a cons., you get your panties in a bunch.

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:19 AM   #32
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Secstate is a high profile position, and high up in line for succession to the Presidency. A swell-looking resume isn't enough. i'd also counter that her resume is no longer impressive. She made a horse's ass out of herself, and the Benghazi attack was most certainly not the first time her incompetence was shown.

Finally Spence, why do your liberal pals label criticism of Rice as "racist"? What's the evidence of that?
Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:26 AM   #33
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Likwid, like the vast majority of Americans, I have no idea who Gen Cone is. If Gen Cone said that, he is also an idiot.

When the killer believes he is killing in the name of Islam, and he shouts "Allah Hu Akbar" (Allah Is Great) as he kills Americans, that is what makes him an Islamic terrorist.

Likwid, you are not going to get me with a simple Gotcha question. I'm not a glaring hypocrit. Every single person who says Ft Hood was not an act of Islamic terrorism, is an idiot. And sying he's an idiot, in no way "proves I hate America". Why would it imply I hate America? I have served America more than a person like you ever will.

Fair enough?
The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:04 AM   #34
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence
Spence -


Earlier in this thread, you said Obama never misled anyone. I posted compelling evidence to the contrary. Can you respond, please?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:09 AM   #35
Piscator
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
Piscator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Marshfield, Ma
Posts: 2,150
In the interest of Thanksgiving, I vote that this goes on the back burner till tomorrow (at least)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Piscator is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:14 AM   #36
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Because I'd wager you really know absolutely nothing about Rice other than what FOX News made up about her involvement in the Benghazi coverage.

And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?

Code words.

-spence
Spence, I keep asking who denied the extra security, and why. If you claim that Foxnews is the only station harping on that, you are correct. Here is where you're wrong...you see that as a sign of bias on the part of Foxnews, I see it as a sign of bias on the part of the other networks, who are more than willing to ignore these 4 deaths, rather than ask challenging questions of Obama.

I also think it's immoral to withold support during a 6 hour firefight, when we had assets available that were far more than what was needed to get the situation under control. And the administration knew that in real time. We've discussed this, and you disagree.

I do not recall that you have ever defended the decision to deny Stevens the extra security he asked for. You have a patter here of being very selective in what you choose to respond to. If there's an easy answer that makes Obama look awesome, you're all over it. If it's something that makes him look incompetent, you choose not to respond. I've seen that time and time again, and many people here have called you on it.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:15 AM   #37
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Spence -


Earlier in this thread, you said Obama never misled anyone. I posted compelling evidence to the contrary. Can you respond, please?
If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence???

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:15 AM   #38
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post

The tone of the whole forum has changed since you have started posting.
Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:16 AM   #39
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piscator View Post
In the interest of Thanksgiving, I vote that this goes on the back burner till tomorrow (at least)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 11:33 AM   #40
justplugit
Registered Grandpa
iTrader: (0)
 
justplugit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: east coast
Posts: 8,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence
You makin that Black Bean sauce?
Throw in some shrimp and I'll be over.
Happy Thanksgiving!

" Choose Life "
justplugit is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 12:10 PM   #41
striperman36
Old Guy
iTrader: (0)
 
striperman36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Mansfield, MA
Posts: 8,760
I should come down and consume some Heady Topper. Let the haters pout today. I'm suprised someone hasn't jumped on a Liberal Thanksgiving plot today.

Where is Mitt anyway
striperman36 is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 12:12 PM   #42
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
And for this you'll throw a long and reputable career away as incompetent?



-spence
Spence, here is one analysis of Rice's tenure as US Ambassador to the UN...written by Richard Grenell, who served as the spokesman for no less than four US Ambassadors to the UN. Enjoy the reading...

"Susan Rice's miserable record at the UN...

Most reporters haven’t been following Ambassador Susan Rice’s performance at the United Nations since her appointment in January 2009. To many journalists, Rice’s misleading interviews on the five Sunday Shows the weekend after the 9/11/12 terrorist attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were one of the first times they had heard from her. To veteran foreign policy observers, Rice’s shameful performance that Sunday was one of many blunders over the last four years.

Rice’s refusal to answer questions about why she blamed the Benghazi violence on a YouTube video was met Wednesday with a feisty defense from President Obama saying don’t blame Rice because the White House sent her out to do the Sunday shows. The “stop picking on Susan” retort from the president looked like a big brother defending his little sister on the playground. It was an odd moment for a woman wanting to be America’s top diplomat.

Obama’s spirited warnings to Republicans to leave Rice alone appeared to be a sign that the White House is shielding Rice from answering further questions about her performance.

The case against Susan Rice has been building for years with little fanfare. Not surprising, the mainstream media reporters based at the UN have either ignored her mistakes or strategically covered them up.

The Washington Post’s UN reporter Colum Lynch even wrote a glowing profile of Rice on September 23 – a week after her Sunday shows debacle – where he didn’t mention the Libya controversy until the 13th paragraph (a Washington Post staffer told me that editors had to add language about the Libya controversy to the piece).

Rice’s diplomatic failures and silence in the face of outrageous UN antics have given the United States pathetic representation among the 193 members of the world body. UN members, not surprisingly, prefer a weak opponent. Rice is therefore popular with her colleagues. It may explain why she ignored Syria’s growing problems for months.

Speaking out and challenging the status quo is seldom cheered at the UN. Her slow and timid response left the United States at the mercy of Russia and China, who ultimately vetoed a watered down resolution an unprecedented three times.

Ironically, Rice was very critical of the US’s performance at the UN under President George W. Bush and vowed to build better relationships with every country. In her current stump speech Rice claims with a straight face that her goal has been accomplished, “We’ve repaired frayed relations with countries around the world. We’ve ended needless American isolation on a wide range of issues. And as a consequence, we've gotten strong cooperation on things that matter most to our national security interest.”

Rice has been consistently silent on other important issues and ineffective when she does engage. She skipped Security Council meetings when Israel needed defending and even failed to show up for the emergency session on the Gaza Flotilla incident.

Rice didn’t even show up for the first two emergency Security Council meetings on the unfolding Arab Spring revolution last year. Rice stayed silent when Iran was elected to the U.N. women’s committee, she didn’t call out Libya when it was elected to the Human Rights Council, she was absent from the Haiti crisis meeting and was a no-show for the last open meeting scheduled before the planned UN vote to recognize Palestinian statehood. When she actually does show up, she is a miserable failure.

Take the crucial issue of Iran. Rice spent the last several years undermining and grumbling about the Bush administration’s increasingly tough measures but has only been able to pass one resolution of her own – compared with the Bush team’s five.

Rice’s one and only Iran resolution was almost 30 months ago. And it passed with just 12 votes of support – the least support we have ever seen for a Security Council sanctions resolution on Iran. In fact, Rice lost more support with her one resolution than the previous five Iran resolutions combined. She may claim she has repaired relationships with other countries but the evidence shows she’s gotten less support than the team she ridicules.

Whether the issue is Sudan, Egypt, North Korea, Israel or Rwanda, Rice has been either missing in action or unable to deliver a quick and effective resolution.

The Rice record at the UN speaks for itself. Anyone looking objectively at what she has or hasn’t accomplished during her tenure will deduce she has failed to convince UN members to support US priority issues. Nominating Susan Rice for Secretary of State is a mistake not just because of her Sunday show deceptions but because her tenure as America’s representative to the UN has been unworthy of a promotion"

Spence, if the information here is accurate, it seems to be at odds with your declaration that she has had a rather stellar career.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 12:17 PM   #43
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
If there's an ongoing investigation you don't jump out and make a conclusion just because you're being pressed in a debate.

You think this is compelling evidence???

-spence
That's the best you could come up with?

How was Obama being "pressed"? It was town hall debate, and the man asked a simple question. That's not being 'pressed', is it? God knows the moderator wasn't going to 'press' Obama.

Obama did not tell the gentleman, "gee, I know the answer to that question, but I can't answer because of an internal investigation". Spence, if that's the case, i agree it's a valid answer. But it's not what Obama said. You're going to greater lengths to excuse him, than he himself did. Can you appreciate that?

It's been 11 weeks, and we have no answers.

Spence that was weak...
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 07:09 PM   #44
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
No chance. It will die down anyway once these freaking people get out of my kitchen and I start cooking.

-spence
...that was funny
scottw is offline  
Old 11-22-2012, 10:06 PM   #45
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The Defense Department hasn't labeled the Ft Hood shootings as terrorism for legal reasons...he's not up on terror charges.

To convict on terror charges would require a higher burden of proof around the conspiracy, motivation etc...Certainly with the Hassan case he appears to have gone a bit nutty and while there's communication with an al Qaeda operative there doesn't appear to be evidence his actions were necessarily directed.

Simply put, bringing Hassan up on terror charges would give him a chance to muddy the waters and escape a conviction or harsher charges.

As it is being prosecuted, the case should be open and shut.

It's funny, you like to accuse the left of acting on emotion rather than facts and rational thought.

Yet this is what you do all the time.

-spence
I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?

Answer - of course not.

Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?

Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.

Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.

Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.

Last edited by Jim in CT; 11-22-2012 at 10:15 PM..
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 06:46 AM   #46
scottw
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
scottw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

only if he shaves the beard...I think the ACLU is defending him on that one




Again, Obama's fantastic story is right out of your playbook. It doesn't matter if it's true, it doesn't matter if it passes the common sense test. All that matters is that it paints your Messiah in the most favorable possible light.

Unfreakinbelievable.
it is an odd obsession of his
scottw is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 09:39 AM   #47
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Maybe because you didn't call folks racist until I came along. It's a ridiculous charge.
And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 10:05 AM   #48
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Wow. A discussion about Susan Rice's possible appointment has devolved into the predictable Bush did it too or did it worse or just did it. Who woulda thunk.
detbuch is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 10:21 AM   #49
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
I want to make sure I understand...you are sayng, that Obama won 't call it a terrorist attack, so that it will be easier to convict Hassan at trial. Is that what you are saying?

Once again...is Obama even claiming that? Spence, if Obama says that Hassan is a terririst, does that mean you can't charge him with anything other than terror? Meaning, does calling him a terrorist preclude us from ever charging him with anything that doesn't make it harder to convict?
The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.

Quote:
Spence, if what you say is true (and as usual, it's not) why would any President, ever, refer to someone as a terrorist who is awaiting trial? Obama has referred to Khalid Shiek Mohammed as a terrorist. So why isn't anyone criticizing Obama for that, since using your logic, that would make it significantly harder to convict him?
KSM was charged with terrorism.

Quote:
Spence, you really threw some egg on your own face here...unbelievable...I've seen love drive some people to do some pretty strange things.
Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.

Quote:
Spence, here is what happened in Benghazi. Stevens asked for extra security. He listed lots of reasons why he thought he needed it, lots of threats, lots of attacks. Someone in the administration denied that request, and even reduced the security.

Then the attack happened.

Now, Obama is not someone who, let's say, welcomes criticism. In this case, Obama can be criticized on 2 fronts...first, he looks like a clown for not granting the request for extra security. Second, since it was an Al Queda-affioiated group that carried out the attack, Obama looks inept for saying that Al Queda was ineffective since he killed Bin Laden.

So Obama tooka page rigt out of the Spence playbook, and came up with a ridiculous story, one that naturally absolves him of any responsibility for what happened. According to Obama...thsi wasn't an attack that Stevens saw coming, but rather, a protest over a video that spiraled out of control, therefore no one can blame Obama.

Except there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that immediately afetr the attack, the CIA, the State Dept, and the Libyans, knew there was no protest before the attack, and that the attack was sophisticated, and pre-planned by a known terror group.
Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence
spence is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 01:17 PM   #50
The Dad Fisherman
Super Moderator
iTrader: (0)
 
The Dad Fisherman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Georgetown MA
Posts: 18,176
Another thing I was thankful for on Thanksgiving...Not Spending any time in the Political Forum......

"If you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he isn't doing the same thing."
The Dad Fisherman is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 01:38 PM   #51
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
The government specifically said they don't want to bias the open and shut case before the military court.


KSM was charged with terrorism.


Usually when you say things like this is means you've waded into water a little too deep.


Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?

-spence
"KSM was charged with terrorism."

But why? If charging someone with terrorism makes it harder to convict them (compared to just charging them with murder), WHY charge KSM with terrirism?

"Have you seriously tried to read ANYTHING about this attack that's not a half baked conspiracy theory?"

Sure I have.

I posted Obama's dodge from the debate. You said Obama coukdn't answer, because of an ongoing investigation. Spence, did you even read Obama's response? Please show us where in that response, Obama said he couldn't answer because it might jeopardize an investigation?

"half baked conspiracy theory?"

Spence, is it a half-baked conspiracy theory that Stevens asked for extra security, and was denied? Am I making that up? Is that a Foxnews, right-wing conspiracy?

That's the most troubling part of this. And when Obama was asked about it at the debate, he absolutely misled America with his answer. You won't admit that, because you cannot admit that Obama would do something so sleazy. But the proof is right there in the transcript. You said Obama never misled anyone, but we have physical proof that he did.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 01:41 PM   #52
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
And you know that was to show the absurdity of what you do daily with your labeling of people.

Frankly, I'm could care less if it was or wasn't a terrorist attack (other than the fact that Americans were killed) as we're going to continue to get attacked for many many years.

However, I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack for the reason for the reason of the attack. It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq and always looked at any evidence that they thought showed Iraq involvement in the worse way and ignored any evidence that Iraq wasn't involved (alumin. tubes, yellowcake, German intelligence and curveball).
"I think it is crazy to compare what was said by Pres. Bush's admin. that caused us to go war needlessly with what was said by Pres. Obama's Admin. AFTER an attack "

So do I. And if you read this thread, you'll see that it was Likwid who brought that up, not me.

"It was shown that Pres. Bush admin. wanted to go to war w/Iraq "

Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 04:27 PM   #53
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Wow. A discussion about Susan Rice's possible appointment has devolved into the predictable Bush did it too or did it worse or just did it. Who woulda thunk.
It shows the hipocrisy.
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 04:29 PM   #54
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
[QUOTE=Jim in CT;971138
Who showed that? With what evidence? If that's true (and it's not), are you aware that then-Senators Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden also voted in favor of the invasion? Why aren't they culpable as well?

Tell us, why did Bush want to go to war with Iraq?[/QUOTE]

R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 05:29 PM   #55
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
It shows the hipocrisy.
Are you suggesting that Jim in CT in order to discuss what he feels are reasons that Rice should not be made Secretary of State, has also to point out that Bush had supposedly done something similar or else he's being hypocritical? This would lead to over-lengthy awkward conversations where every speaker back and forth had to inject other previous examples to whatever he says everytime he says something. The discussion might dwell a long time on each speaker going back to point out other examples of previous Presidents and their SecStates before getting to the discussion at hand. Anyway, in most cases, those previous "problems" were already discussed at the time they occurred. Must they be rehashed over and over every time a new case is discussed or else it shows hypocrisy? Not to mention that Jim doesn't even equate the two circumstances so to him it is not hypocrisy. That would be you labeling him, as you do everytime you want to point out his supposed hypocrisy and labeling. Was it hypocritical of you to point out what you think Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but did not point out how other presidents, including Democrats, manipulated us into war?

Or is this just a way to change the topic?
detbuch is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 05:58 PM   #56
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
It shows the hypocrisy of criticizing the actions of a president while ignoring the actions of the only person(s) you can compare those actions to - previous presidents.

If someone doesn't want to discuss previous examples, they don't have to. If you want to bring up other pres, go right ahead. John will allow it. I didn't see any rules against it. I never realized you didn't like "over-lenghly awkward conversations".
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 06:22 PM   #57
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,688
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
It shows the hypocrisy of criticizing the actions of a president while ignoring the actions of the only person(s) you can compare those actions to - previous presidents.

So, were you being hypocritical when you pointed out what you thought Bush did to get us to invade Iraq, but you didn't point out how previous presidents, including Democrats manipulated us into war?

If someone doesn't want to discuss previous examples, they don't have to.

Nor is it necessarily hypocritical if you don't.

If you want to bring up other pres, go right ahead. John will allow it. I didn't see any rules against it.

Why would I want to discuss other presidents when they are not the topic of this thread?

I never realized you didn't like "over-lenghly awkward conversations".
Did I say I didn't like them? Hey, nice going though. In your own judgmental way you've managed to steer the conversation off of Rice. EEEK--I've let myself get caught up in another PaulS poo-poo. I apologize to all for extending this non-sense.
detbuch is offline  
Old 11-23-2012, 07:02 PM   #58
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
R. Clark said from day 1 Pres. Bush was saying - it's Iraq, we have to go after Iraq. They all voted on the evidence that was shown to them by the admin. If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?

I guess he wanted to finish what his father didn't do - get Hussain out of Iraq.
" If they were feed the wrong info, how can you hold them responsible?"

If Bush intenionally misled them, no one would condone that. Least of all me. But those people who say Bush made stuff up to finish what his father started, are about as rational as those who say Obama is a Muslim. Kooks on both sides. Obviously you have thrown your hat in with one of those groups, because to you, it's OK to falsely accuse the President of treason, presumably as long as the President is white and conservative. I don't know what other motive you have for making up jibberish about Bush. We don't need to make up stuff about Obama, there's more than enough real krazy stuff to point bring up.

Paul, you are now a psychatriast, you can read Bush's mind, and you know that he "wanted" to go to war.

I have never heard Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, claim that they were duped. I guess you have more insode scoop than they do. If they're not saying it, I can't imagine why you are claiming it.

Bill Clinton and Hilary Clinton both said that they were sure Iraq had WMDs. They get a pass. That's not hypocrisy, Paul?
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 11-24-2012, 11:51 AM   #59
PaulS
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
PaulS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT;971185
I have never heard Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards, claim that they were duped. I guess you have more insode scoop than they do. If they're not saying it, I can't imagine why you are claiming it.
[COLOR="Red"
Washington, D.C. (CNSNews.com) – U.S. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts on Tuesday told an audience at the liberal Take Back America conference that he was sorry for voting to authorize the war in Iraq, calling the entire mission "a mistake."

"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."
[/COLOR]
You asked why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war. I told you a possible reason. Clark stated that right from the beginning he was saying that it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11 - that is not reading his mind.
PaulS is offline  
Old 11-24-2012, 04:25 PM   #60
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulS View Post
You asked why Pres. Bush wanted to go to war. I told you a possible reason. Clark stated that right from the beginning he was saying that it was Iraq who was responsible for 9/11 - that is not reading his mind.
Paul, John Kerry says he was misled, and that's it? He says it, so it's true?

I can find kooks who say Obama is a Muslim. Does that make it true?

I can find kooks who say 09/11 was an inside job. Does that make it true?

PaulS, if Bush willfully misled the Senate into voting for the war, I have one simple question for you. Why wasn't Bush impeached when the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006?

Here's another...if Bush "wanted" to go to war, why did he give Saddam Hussein so many chances to avoid war? If Hussein had agreed to the terms of the UN resolution, the war would not have happened. The Bush administration gave Hussein several chances to comply. If Bush "wanted" to go to war, why give Hussein so many chances to avoid war?

Funny. One minute Bush is a dumb hick, right off the set of 'Hee Haw'. The next minute, he's a real-life Jack Bauer who manufactures evidence to fool almost the entire Senate, and he does it in such a way, that they cannot touch him for it. That's one sharp cookie.

Even Spence said, in this thread, that there is no evidence that Bush intentionally misled anyone. That's a pretty good indicator.

Paul, the Senate was not misled. They looked at the evidence, and made the wrong conclusion. That their conclusion was wrong, does not mean it was unethical. If Hussein repeatedly kicks out weapons inspectors, it's not lunacy to conclude that he's hiding something. It's that simple.

Did George Bush mislead Bill Clinton, who said several times that he believed Hussein had WMDs?
Jim in CT is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com