2
   

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 03:03 pm
Hey Wolf - what the heck are you trying to do, be reasonable or something?!?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 03:17 pm
okie wrote:
I recall Clinton himself said OBL was offered, or some such words. He claimed the U.S. had no grounds to hold him or something so he called the Saudis in an effort to convince them to take him. Can you believe Clinton? You tell us. Maybe its another "Clinton fairytale?" Listen to Hannity and he will play the Clinton tape for you.


It is obvious now why you are so confused about everything. You accept Hannity as gospel and disbelieve what Clinton said.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 05:18 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
i wonder if you've ever been to "hollywood" or met a "hollywood lefty"


Dont Tread On Me, calm down. No, I haven't met one. I've seen and heard many of their statements and so forth, and of course no community can be stereotyped across the board in a 100% accurate manner, but stereotypes do apply as an approximation for most people in the movie industry. It is not exactly a hotbed of Republican fundraising activity, thats for sure. Be assured that even though I quoted just one sentence of yours, I read all of your concerns. About all I can say is, thanks for explaining your points, but suffice it to say we just disagree about alot. I just don't happen to be a big fan of movies, thats all, or a fan of movie stars either.

And Roxxxanne, was Clinton telling the truth when he spoke of OBL in the Sudan situation? What is your opinion?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:04 pm
DTOM said...

Quote:
and btw, wasn't it reagan who used to keep saying "i don't recall" during the iran-contra hearings ?


I dont believe President Reagan ever testified at those hearings.
Do you have something that shows he did testify?
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:14 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM said...

Quote:
and btw, wasn't it reagan who used to keep saying "i don't recall" during the iran-contra hearings ?


I dont believe President Reagan ever testified at those hearings.
Do you have something that shows he did testify?


I don't believe anyone said he testified. All that was said was that Reagan said something during the hearings. He could have said it from the east Lawn of the WH.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:28 pm
... if he could find it...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:32 pm
Hey, speak kindly of the deified.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:32 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM said...

Quote:
and btw, wasn't it reagan who used to keep saying "i don't recall" during the iran-contra hearings ?


I dont believe President Reagan ever testified at those hearings.
Do you have something that shows he did testify?


Were you on Mars at the time. You don't recall Reagan's "I don't recall" testimony and the fact that Walsh gave him a pass because of his Alzheimer's? How could anyone interested in politics not remember that?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:39 pm
It was during the investigation by Walsh not the congressional hearings that Reagan said he couldn't recall.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:44 pm
parados wrote:
It was during the investigation by Walsh not the congressional hearings that Reagan said he couldn't recall.


You let the cat out of the bag, I was going to see if MM was going to dispute me.

There are a lot of idiots out there who don't believe something happened unless they saw it on TV or Rush or Hannity told them about it.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 06:55 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM said...

Quote:
and btw, wasn't it reagan who used to keep saying "i don't recall" during the iran-contra hearings ?


I dont believe President Reagan ever testified at those hearings.
Do you have something that shows he did testify?


i'm surprised you don't recall this mystery, Laughing , it was all over the place at the time....

Quote:
Senate hearings on what was called the Iran-contra affair began in 1987. Among those indicted were the National Security Council's John M. Poindexter and Lieut. Col. Oliver North. During North's trial in 1989 a document released by the defense suggested that both Reagan and Bush had been involved in an undercover scheme to secure outside aid for the contras in exchange for military-economic support for Honduras. By 1990 six former Reagan officials had been convicted in the affair. (In eight hours of videotaped testimony about the arms plot, the former president repeatedly swore, "I don't recall.")


www.course-notes.org

but don't get too exited. i don't have a particular grudge with ronny. since i voted for him, i kinda have to own him. ya know, love me, love my dog ?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 07:00 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM said...

Quote:
and btw, wasn't it reagan who used to keep saying "i don't recall" during the iran-contra hearings ?


I dont believe President Reagan ever testified at those hearings.
Do you have something that shows he did testify?


Were you on Mars at the time. You don't recall Reagan's "I don't recall" testimony and the fact that Walsh gave him a pass because of his Alzheimer's? How could anyone interested in politics not remember that?


Actually,during that time I was serving with the Marine detachment at Camp David.
REagan did NOT have Alzheimers during that time,no matter what you would like to think.

But this is an interesting article about Walsh and Reagan...
http://partners.nytimes.com/books/97/06/29/reviews/iran-report.html

And the "I dont recall" defense has been used quite well by other inhabitants of the WH and their spouses.
Do you object to them using it also?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 07:02 pm
DTOM,
I never said he wasnt questioned,I asked you if he ever testified at the hearings themselves.

You suggested that he did with your original statement.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 08:50 pm
parados wrote:

Hannity repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie and repeats the lie................................

Quote:
CLINTON: So we tried to be quite aggressive with them [Al Qaeda]. We got -- well, Mr. bin Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn't and that's how he wound up in Afghanistan.


See the 9/11 staff report excerpt above to compare.

Sudan offered to send Bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis refused to take him. Clinton claims to have pleaded with them to take him.


Parados, read the statement by Clinton again: ".....so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him,...."

2 + 2 does = 4, it is no lie.

I have a simple question, if he didn't bring him here because he had no basis to hold him, it seems clear he had the option to bring him here if he did have a basis to hold him. But, Parados, does it depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is?

Once the 911 commission delves into it, are you going to expect the Clinton administration to confirm the Sudanese and Clinton himself? I certainly would not. Hmmm, maybe there was a reason Sandy Berger was stuffing classified papers into his pants.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:06 pm
mysteryman wrote:
DTOM,
I never said he wasnt questioned,I asked you if he ever testified at the hearings themselves.

You suggested that he did with your original statement.


sorry for the confusion, mystery.

camp david, huh ? pretty impressive. you do get around, doncha? :wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:29 pm
I seem to recall him testifying in the hearings. "The buck stops here" rings a bell. Of course, I was in 6th grade at the time, so I can't vouch for my memory.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Mar, 2006 09:36 pm
Quote:
I recall Clinton himself said OBL was offered, or some such words. He claimed the U.S. had no grounds to hold him or something so he called the Saudis in an effort to convince them to take him. Can you believe Clinton? You tell us. Maybe its another "Clinton fairytale?" Listen to Hannity and he will play the Clinton tape for you.
Quote:
Parados, read the statement by Clinton again: ".....so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him,...."

2 + 2 does = 4, it is no lie.
2+2 = 4 but "I did not bring him here" does not equate to "OBL was offered to Clinton by Sudan."

Here we go again okie.. You get to make up meanings and demand that we accept them. This is so much BS.

"I did not bring my dog to the vet because he wasn't sick." Where is the offer?
"I didn't bring my mother to my house because she didn't have a room to stay in." Where is the offer?
"I didn't bring Bin Laden here because we had no basis." Where is the offer?

Go learn the English language and stop making such a fool of yourself. Hannity is an idiot. You seem to want to emulate him.

Care to find the word "offer" in the statement by Clinton. You can't do it. Not without changing the meaning of words in the English language.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 01:09 am
Parados wrote:
Here we go again okie.. You get to make up meanings and demand that we accept them. This is so much BS.

"I did not bring my dog to the vet because he wasn't sick." Where is the offer?
"I didn't bring my mother to my house because she didn't have a room to stay in." Where is the offer?
"I didn't bring Bin Laden here because we had no basis." Where is the offer?

Go learn the English language and stop making such a fool of yourself. Hannity is an idiot. You seem to want to emulate him.

Care to find the word "offer" in the statement by Clinton. You can't do it. Not without changing the meaning of words in the English language.

Parados, you are hilarious. Are you a lawyer? I will try to walk you through it. Trust me, its not that hard. Just try it.
Here's Clinton's quote again:
"He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, then he went to Sudan. And we'd been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again. They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, 'cause they could have."

To analyze this statement logicly, I submit the following analogy:
"A homeless man was thrown out of Mr. Saudi's house and taken to Mr. Sudan's house. Mr. Sudan wanted to deal with Mr. Clinton and Mr. Sudan sought to release the homeless man from his house. At the time, Mr. Clinton had no basis to want to take custody of the homeless man and house the homeless man so he called Mr. Saudi and pleaded with Mr. Saudi to take the homeless man back."

The word, "offer" is not included in the statement, but the statement certainly implies that Mr. Sudan "offered" to release custody of the homeless man to Mr. Clinton, but Mr. Clinton indicates he does not have reason to house the homeless man and instead calls Mr. Saudi and pleads for him to take the homeless man back. See how easy that is to analyze with logic, Parados? Try it, its not that hard.

Parados, have you ever encountered the meaning of the word, "implied." If a man goes to the store and comes home with groceries and comments to his wife that the groceries were expensive, and the woman says to him that he should not have bought so much, if the man were you, Parados, you might say, "I never said I bought anything did I?" The woman could obviously point out, "no, but you implied it." At which point, you would probably call the woman stupid and a liar for reading too much into his statements.

P.S. Parados, are you the guy that told Clinton to point out that it depended on what the meaning of the word, "is" is?

And by the way, I am not making up meanings and demanding anybody accept them, I am simply looking at the meanings of what has been said, and suggesting some logic in their interpretation. Where do you have evidence I demanded anything?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 06:41 am
okie is trying to convince the readers that he is logical but proves that he is anything but with the following stupid analogy:

Quote:
Parados, have you ever encountered the meaning of the word, "implied." If a man goes to the store and comes home with groceries and comments to his wife that the groceries were expensive, and the woman says to him that he should not have bought so much, if the man were you, Parados, you might say, "I never said I bought anything did I?" The woman could obviously point out, "no, but you implied it." At which point, you would probably call the woman stupid and a liar for reading too much into his statements.


1) If he didn't say ANYTHING the wife could assume he bought the groceries by the mere fact he brought them home. HE DID NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING.

2) If the groceries were needed the fact that they were expensive has nothing to do with how much he bought. Perhaps, she should ask why he chose a store that charges high prices instead of say Costco where he might have bought more but got more groceries for their dollar.

3) If a husband told his wife "I never said I bought anything" after unloading groceries. The wife would certainly ask, "Then how did you get the groceries if you didn't buy them?" He doesn't have to IMPLY anything, he brought the GROCERIES HOME!

4) The wife would certainly ask the husband, "Why are you lying to me?" Certainly, a much bigger issue then how much he spent for groceries.

As anyone can see, the husband would be in considerable hot water for lying to his wife about such a trivial matter, instead in the mind of the okie, it is the wife who is stupid and a liar. This makes absolutely no sense and it reveals a lot as to why okie is so confused about virtually everything.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Mar, 2006 07:49 am
snood wrote:
Hey Wolf - what the heck are you trying to do, be reasonable or something?!?


You're right. Only the insane ones are reasonable...
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 0.24 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 06:31:04