0
   

Why Dems Supported War In Bosnia But Not Iraq

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 09:43 am
Gunga,
I was going to go point by point through your misguided post and point out the gaping errors in it but it isn't worth my time.

Let me only ask one question that any reasonable person will instantly see is the HUGE error in your thinking.

If China stole technology from the US in the 1980s for the W-88, (The design that allows mulitple warheads and suitcase bombs.) then how is it Clinton's fault that China actually deployed that in the 90s?

Therein lies the error in all your statements Gunga. You blame CLinton when it has been clearly shown that Clinton had nothing to do with most of what you blame him for. Your slanted articles even contradict themselves. It is nothing but BS and you are deluding yourself and hoping to delude others by repeating the same crap over and over until people get tired of pointing out the errors.

Citing out of date articles and opinion pieces only reinforces your complete disregard of the real facts..

For anyone that is following this.. let me repeat.. Find the COX REPORT on technology CHina has acquired over the last 30 years. It is a complete report and addresses every one one of the ludicrous claims that Gunga is making here.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 12:34 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Since this site is open for 13+, I think, you really should consider for another place to pose, gunga, or get some advice/education in how to use the English language on an open board.


As I see it I'm providing an invaluable service for parents of teenagers who read the board. I mean, teenagers certainly aren't going to learn the truth about the KKKlinton administration from YOU....

Best of all, it's free; I don't even charge for it.

http://www.eyesoar.us/crybaby_365x376.jpg
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 03:51 pm
parados wrote:
Gunga,
I was going to go point by point through your misguided post and point out the gaping errors in it but it isn't worth my time.



Be honest with yourself; it's beyond your powers.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 08:25 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Since this site is open for 13+, I think, you really should consider for another place to pose, gunga, or get some advice/education in how to use the English language on an open board.


As I see it I'm providing an invaluable service for parents of teenagers who read the board. I mean, teenagers certainly aren't going to learn the truth about the KKKlinton administration from YOU....

Best of all, it's free; I don't even charge for it.


And, what are they going to learn from you Gungasnake? There is enough nonsense out there to challenge and confuse the youth without your nonsensical postings such as this one. I have removed your pathetic image from the quote. Walter seems to have you pegged perfectly.

You may also want to look at your signature line. The Democrats did not become the Democrats until 1830. Arnold died in 1801. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 09:20 pm
For the benefit of teenagers attempting to understand the Clinton administration, courtesy of Mat Drudge:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0375508473.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jh.htm
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 09:28 pm
Another interesting source for teenagers trying to understand the KKKlinton administration:

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html

http://www.zpub.com/un/001201_clinton_cover.jpg

(Slick KKKlinton telling the world to suck his *** on the cover of Esquire Magazine)
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 09:36 pm
<sigh> the proof is in the pudding Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 10:43 pm
Clinton did not okay the sale of even ONE missile guidance system to the Chinese. Not one.

Not one.

Clinton did okay the sale of satellite guidance technology. But then, every body is putting up satellites these days, even private organizations.

But not one missile guidance system did Clinton sell.

These people cannot tell the difference between satellites and missiles.

But that doesn't stop them from ranting endlessly.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 10:59 pm
gungasnake wrote:
Another interesting source for teenagers trying to understand the KKKlinton administration:

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc.html

http://www.zpub.com/un/001201_clinton_cover.jpg

(Slick KKKlinton telling the world to suck his *** on the cover of Esquire Magazine)


Is that you snake at the bottom of that source, gunga?
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:02 pm
gungasnake wrote:
For the benefit of teenagers attempting to understand the Clinton administration, courtesy of Mat Drudge:


http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3jh.htm


Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
(c)DRUDGE REPORT 2005
Not for reproduction without permission of the author


Dis you get permission to reproduce this gunga?
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:09 pm
Intrepid wrote:


Dis you get permission to reproduce this gunga?


To reproduce WHAT? All I posted was a link and a link to an image. I mean, if you think I've done something illegal you should notify the appropriate authorities, but the appropariate authorities do not like to be bothered with BS.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:25 pm
Neither do we!
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 11:34 pm
Like I say, I don't particularly give a rat's *** what YOU may or may not like being bothered with. As the democrats would put it, I'm doing this for the children...
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 04:45 am
Now, now Gunga. Watch your language around the children. Remember, you have a lofty responsibility to the children that you say you are doing this for. Temper, temper......
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 06:01 am
I'd like to recommend the reading of a recently published (by Rand Corporation, sponsored by the United Staes Army) research:

American Public Support for U.S. Military Operations from Mogadishu to Baghdad

"The support of the American public is widely held to be a critical prerequisite for undertaking military action abroad. This monograph describes American public opinion toward wars and other large military operations over the last decade, to delineate the sources of support and opposition for each war or operation, to identify the principal fault lines in support, and to illuminate those factors that are consistent predictors of support for and opposition to military operations."

Full document (PDF; 2.6 MB)

Summary (PDF; 0.1 MB)
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 09:07 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
I'd like to recommend the reading of a recently published (by Rand Corporation, sponsored by the United Staes Army) research:

American Public Support for U.S. Military Operations from Mogadishu to Baghdad

"The support of the American public is widely held to be a critical prerequisite for undertaking military action abroad. This monograph describes American public opinion toward wars and other large military operations over the last decade, to delineate the sources of support and opposition for each war or operation, to identify the principal fault lines in support, and to illuminate those factors that are consistent predictors of support for and opposition to military operations."

Full document (PDF; 2.6 MB)

Summary (PDF; 0.1 MB)



I'd assume the point you're trying to make is that I'm wrong in claiming that demokkkrats don't support the war on terror since the report cites something like 80% support for the operation in Afthanistan and 70% for the operation in Iraq.

In real life however, that's about what somebody like myself would expect. Thirty-three percent is a sort of a natural number in the universe like pi or e or the Avagadro number from chemistry; it's roughly the percentage of a$$holes in any industrialized nation, i.e. losers whose minds are sufficiently clouded by ideology for them to consistently vote for some sort of a totally rogue political party. That was the percentage which Hitler used to get in German elections, and it's the percentage which demokkkrats would get in a fair election in America now.

Even demokkkrats have claimed that the mainstream media in this country gave them fifteen percent of the vote in the 2004 election, i.e. that in an election with no media or with an unbiased media, the Bush/Kerry election would have been 70/30 or 65/35. The dems basically got their own hard core of losers (33%) plus another 15% (gullible) kicked in by the media.

For the year and a half prior to the 2004 election it seemed as if every time I walked in front of a television set or was in a dentist's office or a barber shop or any such place where one has occasion to pick up a magazine, and picked up a magazine and looked at it, there it was again, the screaming message of the American mainstream media:

Quote:

OH MY GOD, THAT GEORGE W. BUSH IS A FOOL, AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE ON ACCOUNT OF WHAT A FOOL THAT GEORGE W. BUSH IS!!!!!



http://www.calblog.com/archives/004109.html

Quote:

Newsweek's Evan Thomas had once boasted ...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005571

"There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 10:41 am
gungasnake wrote:
Quote:
In real life however, that's about what somebody like myself would expect. Thirty-three percent is a sort of a natural number in the universe like pi or e or the Avagadro number from chemistry; it's roughly the percentage of a$$holes in any industrialized nation, i.e. losers whose minds are sufficiently clouded by ideology for them to consistently vote for some sort of a totally rogue political party. That was the percentage which Hitler used to get in German elections


Is that where you are, gunga, in that 33 % ? I thought I recognized you in there.
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 03:32 pm
gungasnake wrote:

Even demokkkrats have claimed that the mainstream media in this country gave them fifteen percent of the vote in the 2004 election, i.e. that in an election with no media or with an unbiased media, the Bush/Kerry election would have been 70/30 or 65/35.


Any recognizable names?

I'm sure there are some Democrats, somewhere, who think that the media favored Kerry, just as I am equally certain there are some Republicans, somewhere, who believe in the phlogiston theory of fire, the flatness of the Earth, or the idea that the world is only 6,000 years old.

Wait-check that last one. That might be most Republicans.

I'm just wondering if there are any people prominent for doing work in the Democratic party who said the media made a 15% difference in favor of Kerry at the voting booth, and how many.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 03:35 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
gungasnake wrote:

Even demokkkrats have claimed that the mainstream media in this country gave them fifteen percent of the vote in the 2004 election, i.e. that in an election with no media or with an unbiased media, the Bush/Kerry election would have been 70/30 or 65/35.


Any recognizable names?



Evan Thomas of Newsweek as I noted:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005571
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 31 May, 2005 03:57 pm
I guess I can laugh of any assertion that I may be hysterical in my beliefs.

This is rich by the way Gunga...
Gunga's drudge report link wrote:

--Bill Clinton was so upset that his weight-loss regimen in 2000 was not working that he made his aides release a bogus number after his annual Navy physical to make him five pounds lighter. (pg. 394)

--Hillary taunted her husband's aides as being wimps by not fighting hard enough on Whitewater - "JFK had real men in his White House!" (pg. 108)

--Tipper Gore was so disgusted in 2000 with Bill and Hillary that she stayed cloistered in a holding room instead of going to a New York reception with major Democratic fund-raisers where the Clintons would be. "No, I'm not doing it," she snapped to an aide. "I'm not going out there with that man."

--The first conversation between Clinton and Gore after the Lewinsky story broke. Clinton is shouting at Gore, "This is a ******* coup d'etat!" Gore just stared back blankly. pg 313.

--Former White House counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke on the record hitting Clinton for not having the guts to fire FBI director Louis Freeh, who Clarke called a major obstacle on anti-terrorism policy. "He should have just fired Freeh and taken the **** it would have caused." (pg. 408)


...and like, she like, told me that, like my.....ummmm....my husband is like....

Gimme a break. Gossip freak.
You'd be the first one to get a hard-on if Bush's personal life was included in political debate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 09:56:49