scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I don't deny the lie hey chuck ... did you read the whole post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 stick by that signature. Clinton's lie about not having sex with Monica was/is a nonissue for me. What about Kosovo Chuck? 100,000 Albanian corpses. Where are they. I heard you screaming "Where are the WMD?", but not "where are the corpses." When ya look at it that way Chuck, it seems like you are pretty partisan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 What did he lie about in Kosovo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 (edited) Albanian genocide. He stated that there were over 100,000 dead Albanians found in mass graves. How many did they find? 3% of the estimated number. Far less than the number found in Iraqui mass graves. Granted that is not why GWB stated he sent to war, but for those of you who backed the Kosovo conflict and spoke against the Iraqui conflict, it leaves some questions to be asked. Edited March 19, 2004 by scott_harpell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 it was a fing video clip made to prove a point, i'm sure u can find the whole video somwhere and there is probly more B.S. and lies tied in it to. i didn't see anyone complaing when then showed janets tit pop out, wtf happen to the rest of the performance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 stick by that signature. Clinton's lie about not having sex with Monica was/is a nonissue for me. What about Kosovo Chuck? 100,000 Albanian corpses. Where are they. I heard you screaming "Where are the WMD?", but not "where are the corpses." When ya look at it that way Chuck, it seems like you are pretty partisan. You must be confusing me with someone else . Did I know you when Clinton was president? Did this site exist? How can you say I am partisan because I oppose the Iraq war and you have no idea of what I was thinking during Clinton's term (except for the fact that I don't think lieing about boffing an intern is something of major importance)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 you have no idea of what I was thinking during Clinton's term well. you said that no-one died when clinton lied. So, are you denying that Clinton lied, that people died or is it YOU that dosen't know what they are talking about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I don't think you are partisan because you are against the Iraqui conflict, but rather because you lambast Bush for doing the same thing that was done in the previous term by Clinton whom you seem to be defending with your previous auto-sig. I think they are both pig fuckers as they both lied to start a war that served their best interests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 (edited) I think you would have to be an idiot to not understand which lie this slogan refers to. Hint: I referred to it in a previous post in this very thread!. edited after seeing your next post I think you probably understand that the republicans made great political hay out of a stupid lie (about boffing an intern) that Clinton made. This is the lie to which I am referring in my catchy autosig. My autosig is not meant as an endorsement of Clinton lies or even Clinton himself, but an exclamation that screams that while we understand that most politicians/priest/people lie about a lot of shit, when a president lies about a matter of grave importance, like for example, invading a country without any obvious reason, it is a much worse offense. Would you be happier if I change my autosig to We need a leader, not a misleader! That does not explicitly state "Clinton". Edited March 19, 2004 by chucK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I think you would have to be an idiot to not understand which lie this slogan refers to. Hint: I referred to it in a previous post in this very thread!. Are you an idiot? I can explain it to you if you wish. I wonder if you are the idiot sir. You state that no-one died when Clinton lied. Is this a true statement? Might I also just point you in the direction of looking at both the time of the Monica scandal and the timing of the Kosovo conflict? Mabe that would shed some light on who he idiot is. Wow! that lie doesn't seem so harmless now does it!?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Might I also just point you in the direction of looking at both the time of the Monica scandal and the timing of the Kosovo conflict? Wow! that lie doesn't seem so harmless now does it!?! I don't get it. Did Clinton lie about not boffing Monica so that it would not derail his plans of bombing Kosovo in order to solidify our country's hold on that vital region? To tell you the truth I didn't pay much attention to the whole Kosovo thing. Perhaps I was distracted by the partisan impeachment thing. Was that whole Monica thing meant as a diversion to keep the public in the dark about the Clinton powerplay in Kosovo? How many troops do we have over there right now anyway? Do we have any allies over there helping us out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Let me explain it to you boys so you can stop arguing: 1) Have all presidents lied? Yes 2) Is it relevant to the next election whether or not the previous president ever lied? No 3) Are certain people blind to facts? Yes 4) Will any amount of facts convince them otherwise? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Did Clinton lie about not boffing Monica so that it would not derail his plans of bombing Kosovo in order to solidify our country's hold on that vital region? Mabe Clinton lied about Kosovo because starting a war has traditionally helped presidents in their polls (look at Bush's during the begining of the occupation). It i not hard for one to see the possibility that if he did not lie about Monica, there might be no Kosovo. Really, if there were no 100,000 dead Albanians, why else would we have gone over there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted March 19, 2004 Author Share Posted March 19, 2004 Scott, you're an idiot. Go look up your facts on the former Yugoslavia republic war crimes. 100,000 is a fraction of the number of people killed in that conflict. The right has the hardest time admitting that despite not sending in ground troops, Clinton prevented a good deal of further bloodshed and we've ended up with Milosivec (sp?) in The Hauge. The area is now returning to relative stability and the breakup has gone about as well as possible. We won't be saying that about Iraq in 4 years I'm pretty sure, but who knows. Get your fucking head out of the ass. This administration sucks, even worse than the worst I thought the right could put forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Before the bombing, Clinton and Defense Secretary William Cohen repeatedly tossed out figures of 100,000 dead, and the State Department even claimed that up to 500,000 Kosovars were feared dead. Clinton claimed that his bombing prevented Milosevic from "deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide." The chief prosecutor for the UN war crimes tribunal, Carla Del Ponte, can confirm only the 2,108 figure. That's what she reported to the UN Security Council. Pathologist Emilio Perez Pujol, who led a Spanish forensic team looking for bodies, found only 187, mostly in individual graves. He calculated that "the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 2,500 at the most. This includes lots of strange deaths that can't be blamed on anyone in particular." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 We should have little warning label icons below our avatars. Things like: I like to talk about politics while climbing. I like to talk about religion while climbing. I like to talk about medical conditions while climbing. I like to talk about conspiracy theories while climbing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whirlwind Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 i like to talk about sex while climbing i like to talk about climbing while climbing i like to talk aboutsword fight while climbing i like to talk about maste.. oh nm while climbing i like to talk about cc.com while climbing.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Uh, somehow I think this diatribe of posts lost the point. I'm cornfused. What are we talking about? I seem to have got ChucK off his rocker even though I was merely inoccuously ribbing him. But, ChucK, regarding lies. They're still lies whether they're little bitty ones or humongo biggo ones. Lies are lies--period. True, Clinton's Lewinsky cigar job lie is not as big a lie as Bush's Iraqsky lie, but it's still a lie. Anyway, regarding lying about boffing an intern. You say this is 'white lie' material. Well, I'm sure the family of Chandra Levy were not too pleased with Rep. Gary Condit for having an affair with their daughter, initially lying about it, and then covering up the murder (if he indeed was involved with the murder). That is all. Gutta nacht. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klenke Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Okay, so I watched the video. The lie exposed in the video has to do with word usage (Rumsfeld did indeed use the words "immediate threat" in prior dialogue even though he was saying such words had never been spoken by him or the President). I agree the lie was exposed. I also don't agree that it was bad journalism at least in the format that the video has been edited. I don't know if something was altered. It doesn't matter. Is that the Jack Krugman fellow on the left? Now, I would like to raise this issue: The video textual display calls out "This deception must stop." It also calls for censure of the President. Why not impeach the President? Why not go all the way with it? Isn't this lie much bigger than Clinton's lie (to a grand jury, I remind you, which is a big no-no [perjury]) where Clinton did have to endure the impeachment proceedings? What will censure do? Guarantee a Kerry victory in November? Why not impeach Bush now to get Kerry in there now (I forget who takes over in an impeachment)? Censuring the President will not necessarily get him (read: his Administration) to stop lying. Impeaching him removes him from office, whereupon his lies won't matter anymore in the context of using them to make decisions. I'm just wondering why the liberal democrats chose the lesser of the two (censure over impeachment) in this case. I know they badly want Bush out of office. Could it be they want him to only be censured because they know that removal of the President now (by June because impeachments don't happen overnight) would do the Iraqi military/democracy building process a disservice? I'm asking you liberal democrats why? I want to know why you're only going with censure? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Klenke, I think the problem with asking for impeachment rather than censure is that even post-Watergate we still, in general, have great respect for the office of President. I think they realize that asking for impeachment is a much more serious undertaking and is much more psychologically damaging to the electorate. They *especially* don't want to be seen making such a request during an important election year. Censure, to most people, means nothing. That's like a slap on the wrist please don't do it again wink wink nudge nudge. Impeachment merely brings to mind a very painful episode in our recent history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sexual_chocolate Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Uh, somehow I think this diatribe of posts lost the point. I'm cornfused. What are we talking about? I seem to have got ChucK off his rocker even though I was merely inoccuously ribbing him. But, ChucK, regarding lies. They're still lies whether they're little bitty ones or humongo biggo ones. Lies are lies--period. True, Clinton's Lewinsky cigar job lie is not as big a lie as Bush's Iraqsky lie, but it's still a lie. Anyway, regarding lying about boffing an intern. You say this is 'white lie' material. Well, I'm sure the family of Chandra Levy were not too pleased with Rep. Gary Condit for having an affair with their daughter, initially lying about it, and then covering up the murder (if he indeed was involved with the murder). That is all. Gutta nacht. summer sausage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billygoat Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 someone is out of retirement... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murraysovereign Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 Question #1: Why not impeach the President? Answer? See question #2 Question #2: I forget who takes over in an impeachment)? Answer: the Vice-President, i.e. Dick Cheney. That is why not to impeach Bush. Ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 murraysovereign, that is a wise and astute observation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 JoshK- That's what I don't get. What is these guy's beef with Kosovo? (1) Not a single American soldier died. (2) The bad guy's gone and there a more favorable government in place (?). (3)It appears that we stopped lots of bloodshed. These statements don't apply to Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.