I'm not going to make excuses for what he did or the fact that he lied about having an affair. See my reference to scumbags. The simple fact of the matter is that it would be an extraordinary person not to lie when accused of cheating on his spouse. That's called being human. Censure would have done the job without the waste of time or money.
This thread is not about Clinton or hummers so I'm not going to waste any more time on it.

 

Good idea.

 

Would someone be so kind as to tell arrbilly and me where the Clinton hummer thread is? I have been waiting patiently for this one to transform into one as all the other Iraq threads do but, we're page 6 and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. I'm not going to waste any more time either.

 

01: You seem to like taking my posts and others apart point by point and giving your response. At least the points that are convenient for your rhetoric. Here are a few that you haven't addressed with my rebuttal following.
?????

Saddam posed a serious and GRAVE danger to the free world. With that and the fact that Saddam had used his WMD’s before on his own people and in Iran
__________________________________

<That hardly constitutes an attack on the US. In fact, the US supported Iraq in it's war with Iran because of what happened in 1979. The US provided Iraq with arms, satellite intelligence and the chemical and biological components that enabled the manufacture of the unconventional weapons they had at the time. After the gassing of the Kurds, The CIA and the administration blamed the attack on Iran even though they knew better.>

and the fact that he continually made statements to the effect of wanting to bring America to its knees he was accurately defined by the Clinton administration and now the Bush administration as an Imminent threat…Iraq had made many threats about causing harm to America and Iraq did indeed have the necessary weapons to cause grave harm to America and Iraq did indeed have the means to support and deliver an attack/invasion to America.
________

<a) Making loud noises and having the means to back them up are two entirely different things.
b) Again, where are the weapons or the means to deliver them?>


I guess it depends on your definition of “invasion”. No he could not bring his army here, nor could he launch a missile from Iraq to land in America. In the 60’s the word “invasion” (bringing one’s army to another’s country) didn’t really have much meaning anymore as far as a legitimate reason. That is because of the invent of ICBM’s.

<ICBM's in Iraq? Give me a break.>


On a side note I would take it if there was ever another Hitler it would be ok with you to let them do as they please with those in their country so long as they are not “bothering” anyone else (another country)?


<My country and every country in Europe that wasn't aligned with Hitler went to war with him in 1939 while the US sat on the sidelines saying "it's not our fight" until Pearl Harbor in 1941.
In conclusion, your rationalisations just don't hold water.>

 

arrbilly, when you're doing that can you alternate between bold and not bold like 01XLT Sport taught ya so,
I'll know who is right and who is wrong?

p.s.
I'm not telling you how to phrase your argument but, I can't read a whole page like that unless it says, "Clinton or 'hummer' at least once.

 

It must be a good chunk of Canuck in you.

if you can't tell by the content I'll let you in on the secret.
My stuff has the < > on the it. Doing the bold thing takes too long what with my extreme typing speed and all so I just did a cut and paste.

 

besides, that whole post I took the stuff from was in bold anyhow due to my lack of expertise.

 

I got it now.....

<This stuff is right> and this stuff is wrong <Right> Wrong <Good> Bad <Attractive> Ugly <Pedigree> Mutt <Intelligent> Rode the short bus <Democratic Hopeful> Bush <No WMD> WMD coming out the ears <Clinton> <Hummer> <Monica> jealous rightwingers that ain't gettin none

 

Aahh glasshoppa, you now are beginning to see the light.
If you ever decide to sojourn through the left coast of Canada, let me know. I'll buy you a beer. Off course I'll stick to soda water.

 

I'll will be up that way in six years when I retire, that is if President Edwards doesn't close the northern border sometime during his second term.

 

I'd extend the same invite to 01, but,seeing as British Columbia is on the left side of the continent, I doubt he'd go for it. Ya never know though, we have a very right wing government here...

 

They were artillery shells with a range of 1500 YARDS that were buried and LEAKING. The only people they were going to blister were the Iraqi's trying to fire them.

-Don

 

The Republican governor of Connecticut admitted to accepting gifts and free work after he initially lied about it.

Strom Thurman has an illigitimate daughter and fought to make sure she had didn't have equal rights.

Richard Nixon covered up a break-in at the Watergate Hotel.

Both sides of the aisle have bad apples so please do not pretend either one is innocent.

-Don

 

Huh. The debate people I knew in college were intelligent, articulate, and generally had a lot of fun. You probably just weren't invited to those parties

-Don

 

First I have not seen any news yet on if those shells tested possitive for chemicals, I read somewhere that the results should be in a few days.

Second, if they are found to have chemical agents in them, then contrary to the above definition, they still are on the no-no list.



From: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad253.htm



We all now we the WMD's are hidden though

Enjoy:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comm...?IDLink=781796