(November 16, 2014 at 12:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Chad, who do you think is right and why? Mathews or that other guy whose name I don't know?

Part of the definition of conservative in the first place is that you're less likely to compromise. They want to conserve the status quo, and keep things as much the same as possible. Historically it has been liberals that change things. Even back when republicans fought for change, it was because they used to be the liberal party.

You don't get to talk about Obama being uncompromising when you shut down the government, and fight against gay rights, marijuana legalization, minimum wage increase, and gun reform. Things that most American people want, but their rich backers don't want.

(November 16, 2014 at 10:29 am)Heywood Wrote: I think the intelligence both presidents depended on was flawed.

No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

There was no "bad intelligence" that led us to war in Iraq.

By 2004, we already had the Yellow Cake story and W was still repeating the same debunked lies in his RNC speech. In later years, other evidence of his administration's deceptions had surfaced, including the Downing Street Memo. So yes, we really can prove W Bush lied.

Quote:Now even knowing this, I still supported the war for a couple of reasons:
1. We've had been in a quasi war with Iraq since 1991 and that needed to stop.

...and that was a cause of war why?

Quote:2. Saddam was a monster that we helped to create. We had a moral responsibility to remove him....even at the expense of shedding our own blood.

...and the blood of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. I'm sure they're so grateful.

Quote:3. I thought the middle east would be a much better place with a democratic Iraq....and still think this.

How's that working for them?

Put bluntly, much of the Middle East isn't ready for democracy. Democracy can't co-exist with religious fanaticism. It can only exist in a secular environment or at least one in which religion is sufficiently watered down. Where religious fanaticism is present, the people will just vote themselves a theocracy.

(November 15, 2014 at 6:42 pm)TaraJo Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and perjury.

Yep. That's what the GOP was able to get to stick after six years of near constant investigations. They ask him about his personal sex life and he lied and that's what they got him for.

I said at the time that the only proper answer was "none of your goddamned business," and then double-dog-dare the Congress to jail me for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about a perfectly legal sex act between two consenting adults.

---

(November 15, 2014 at 10:27 pm)simplemoss Wrote: Why do all the threads in politics and the news section have some asshole named Heywood spewing shit and bubbling vomit all over every one of them?

Shit draws flies and roaches.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 11:36 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: Put bluntly, much of the Middle East isn't ready for democracy. Democracy can't co-exist with religious fanaticism. It can only exist in a secular environment or at least one in which religion is sufficiently watered down. Where religious fanaticism is present, the people will just vote themselves a theocracy.

The other thing is that because of the tribal sociology of much of the region, the seeds of democracy find the soil barren. One reason Islam spread so quickly through the area is because it buttressed to concepts of clan and tribe to which the people in that area adhered, concepts which are still valued by many in that region of the world.

(November 15, 2014 at 11:36 pm)Heywood Wrote: Translation: When my guy refuses to negotiate....its not obstruction....its taking the high road.

You see, I have always heard Republicans insist that it was bad form to negotiate with terrorists. Can you assholes make up your tiny minds?

(November 16, 2014 at 2:42 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Can you assholes make up your tiny minds?

They can't make up their minds whether or not Obama is:
1. a weak man who project weak weakness all over the world while weakly wearing his weak mom jeans (whatever that means) and reducing confidence among our allies by being so weak and causing our glorious victory in Iraq to disintegrate because he was projecting weakness all over the Middle-East.
-or-
2. an iron fisted lawless tyrant who arrogantly thinks he's above the law as he single-mindedly peruses his agenda no matter the cost and refuses to negotiate with anyone because he's a fanatical Muslim of the Sekrit sect and a zealous black panther who will stop at nothing in his never ending drive to transform America and will no one stop this frightening, scary ni... socialist!!!!

(November 16, 2014 at 2:12 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote:

(November 15, 2014 at 6:42 pm)TaraJo Wrote: Yep. That's what the GOP was able to get to stick after six years of near constant investigations. They ask him about his personal sex life and he lied and that's what they got him for.

I said at the time that the only proper answer was "none of your goddamned business," and then double-dog-dare the Congress to jail me for contempt of Congress for refusing to answer questions about a perfectly legal sex act between two consenting adults.

Its obvious that you've been suckered into the leftwing revisionist history on the matter.

Congress did not ask this question....GOP investigators did not ask the question. During a sexual harassment lawsuit Clinton was asked under oath by a plaintiff's attorney if he had sexual relations with a subordinate. If Clinton refused to answer, it would be the judge presiding over the sexual harassment trial who would determine if having sex with a subordinate was germane to a sexual harassment case. It would have been the judge in the sexual harassment trial who would have sanctioned Clinton for refusing to answer the question...not Congress.

Congress did not get involved in the matter at all until it became woefully apparent that the President of the United States was attempting to usurp the order created by the courts and perhaps even create a miscarriage of justice by engaging in perjury.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 10:59 am)Chad32 Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 12:15 am)Heywood Wrote: Chad, who do you think is right and why? Mathews or that other guy whose name I don't know?

Part of the definition of conservative in the first place is that you're less likely to compromise. They want to conserve the status quo, and keep things as much the same as possible. Historically it has been liberals that change things. Even back when republicans fought for change, it was because they used to be the liberal party.

You don't get to talk about Obama being uncompromising when you shut down the government, and fight against gay rights, marijuana legalization, minimum wage increase, and gun reform. Things that most American people want, but their rich backers don't want.

Thank you for your response, but you didn't answer the question I asked. Who is right and why in that video you presented....Mathews or that other guy?

Now, if only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., were ever called to the stand to testify under oath that they started a war which killed countless thousands and wasted trillions of dollars under completely credible pretenses. But, of course, the Republican mindset, insofar as they have minds, is that a blowjob is worth more judicial scrutiny than an unprovoked genocide. Which, at the very least, is being true to those Judeo-Christian principles they profess to adore.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 10:59 am)Chad32 Wrote: Part of the definition of conservative in the first place is that you're less likely to compromise. They want to conserve the status quo, and keep things as much the same as possible. Historically it has been liberals that change things. Even back when republicans fought for change, it was because they used to be the liberal party.

You don't get to talk about Obama being uncompromising when you shut down the government, and fight against gay rights, marijuana legalization, minimum wage increase, and gun reform. Things that most American people want, but their rich backers don't want.

Thank you for your response, but you didn't answer the question I asked. Who is right and why in that video you presented....Mathews or that other guy?

Kyle is, for the reasons I stated last time.

(November 16, 2014 at 4:39 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: Now, if only Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al., were ever called to the stand to testify under oath that they started a war which killed countless thousands and wasted trillions of dollars under completely credible pretenses. But, of course, the Republican mindset, insofar as they have minds, is that a blowjob is worth more judicial scrutiny than an unprovoked genocide. Which, at the very least, is being true to those Judeo-Christian principles they profess to adore.

If only Minimalist would shower he wouldn't stink so bad. What does Minimalist's hygiene have to do with Clinton's impeachment?.....nothing. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice actions have nothing to do with Clinton's crime and subsequent impeachment. It is silly to bring them up. It is a red herring employed to steer the conversation in a different direction hoping that perhaps now....you might do better in the argument.

---

(November 16, 2014 at 5:04 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(November 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm)Heywood Wrote: Thank you for your response, but you didn't answer the question I asked. Who is right and why in that video you presented....Mathews or that other guy?

Kyle is, for the reasons I stated last time.

Do you agree that Mathews is arguing in good faith?

(November 16, 2014 at 5:08 pm)A Hypocritical Fucktard Wrote: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice actions have nothing to do with Clinton's crime and subsequent impeachment.

Your objection has already been answered. It's about your hypocrisy as well as the hypocrisy of every Republican who called for the impeachment of Clinton and then looked the other way on W's dishonesty and crimes (or worse, continue to defend them as you have).

Don't speak to me about how you value integrity and I don't. I just care more about wars of aggression than I do about someone else's blow jobs.