Speaking of conservative flip-flopping depending on who's in power:

Heywood seriously dude just create own thread called Heywood's manifesto.

You've successfully transformed a simple joke thread about Republicans impeaching every Democrat they don't like, to being about blowjobs 20 years ago and immigration policy? From there, too your own weird, perplexing, and some what retarded views about politics in general

Please stop

(November 16, 2014 at 6:53 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I just thought of a way to explain it to you in a way even you would understand. I'm going to let Jesus do the talking to Republicans who are so piously upset that Clinton lied about a blow job but look the other way with W Bush's lie.

When Clinton was embroiled in the scandal that led to his impeachment, Larry Flint posted a front page ad offering a million dollar bounty for information revealing affairs of prominent republicans. Some dirt was dug up Bob Livingston, who was in line to replace Newt Gingrich as speaker of the House.

Livingston stood before the house. Called on Clinton to resign. Catcalls and boos came from the democrats, they were shouting "YOU RESIGN!"....the gavel was pounded, "THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER" called the speaker pro tem. When the commotion had died down, Livingston went back to his prepared remarks. He continued, "And I can only challenge him [President Clinton] in such fashion if I am willing to heed my own words."

The House democrats became silent as they knew Livingston was tendering his resignation and that they were a bunch of hypocrites.

A republican was holding himself to the same standards that he was holding the democrats too. When have you ever seen a democrat hold themselves to the same standard that they hold republicans too?

(November 18, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: When have you ever seen a democrat hold themselves to the same standard that they hold republicans too?

When I see the GOP acting to turn Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. over to The Hague to stand trial for crimes of war, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity, then and only then will they be pulling the plank of wood out of their collective eye.

A guy resigning over an affair he had on his wife doesn't cut it. That's just another spec of sawdust.

Until I see these war criminals arrested and brought to trial by or with the help of Republican efforts, you can fuck off with your sanctimonious melodrama about how morally superior the GOP is.

(November 18, 2014 at 11:40 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 18, 2014 at 9:13 pm)Heywood Wrote: When have you ever seen a democrat hold themselves to the same standard that they hold republicans too?

When I see the GOP acting to turn Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, et. al. over to The Hague to stand trial for crimes of war, crimes of aggression and crimes against humanity, then and only then will they be pulling the plank of wood out of their collective eye.

A guy resigning over an affair he had on his wife doesn't cut it. That's just another spec of sawdust.

Until I see these war criminals arrested and brought to trial by or with the help of Republican efforts, you can fuck off with your sanctimonious melodrama about how morally superior the GOP is.

If it was Clinton who did these things you accuse Bush and Cheney of doing....I am sure you could find an even higher bar to skirt under so you can continue to support your man.

Livingston's situation wasn't even nearly as ciminal as Clinton....yet he resigned after calls from Democrats for him to resign....yet not one of those same democrats called for Clinton's resignation.

(November 19, 2014 at 11:25 am)Heywood Wrote: If it was Clinton who did these things you accuse Bush and Cheney of doing

Really? The 2003 Iraq War happened under Clinton's administration which ended in 2000?

That was a neat trick. Does Clinton have a British 1960s style police box that's bigger on the inside and travels through space and time? And here I always thought the whole concept of an "American Dr. Who" would be sacrilegious but hey, if you say so.

(November 19, 2014 at 11:33 am)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 11:25 am)Heywood Wrote: If it was Clinton who did these things you accuse Bush and Cheney of doing

Really? The 2003 Iraq War happened under Clinton's administration which ended in 2000?

That was a neat trick. Does Clinton have a British 1960s style police box that's bigger on the inside and travels through space and time? And here I always thought the whole concept of an "American Dr. Who" would be sacrilegious but hey, if you say so.

I don't mind you quoting just relevant sentences....I do that too. But please try to maintain the original context and at the very least....please at least quote complete sentences. Your quoting of a partial sentence is underhanded.

That being said, hostilities in Iraq began in 1991 not in 2003.

(November 19, 2014 at 11:43 am)Heywood Wrote: I don't mind you quoting just relevant sentences....I do that too. But please try to maintain the original context and at the very least....please at least quote complete sentences. Your quoting of a partial sentence is underhanded.

No quote mining was intended. I re-read your entire post and it does seem like you're blaming Clinton for the 2003 Gulf War.

Quote:That being said, hostilities in Iraq began in 1991 not in 2003.

Seriously?

The 1991 was was a war to fight Iraqi aggression and liberate Kuwait. That was a justified war, done in concert with the UN, pursued only when all other options had failed. It was successfully concluded.

The 2003 war was done without a cause of war, fighting an enemy that had nothing to do with Saddam. Using 1991 to justify the 2003 war would be like invading Japan with the attempted justification of a war started in 1942.

I'm just glad Bush wasn't president during WWII. Japan would have bombed us and Bush would have responded by invading the Soviet Union. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other and Al Qaida in Iraq was fighting with Saddam before we invaded. Not only did Bush lie us into a war, he did so taking out our enemy's enemy.

(November 19, 2014 at 12:00 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 11:43 am)Heywood Wrote: I don't mind you quoting just relevant sentences....I do that too. But please try to maintain the original context and at the very least....please at least quote complete sentences. Your quoting of a partial sentence is underhanded.

No quote mining was intended. I re-read your entire post and it does seem like you're blaming Clinton for the 2003 Gulf War.

Quote:That being said, hostilities in Iraq began in 1991 not in 2003.

Seriously?

The 1991 was was a war to fight Iraqi aggression and liberate Kuwait. That was a justified war, done in concert with the UN, pursued only when all other options had failed. It was successfully concluded.

The 2003 war was done without a cause of war, fighting an enemy that had nothing to do with Saddam. Using 1991 to justify the 2003 war would be like invading Japan with the attempted justification of a war started in 1942.

You had full scale war in 1991. You had full scale war in 2003. Between 1991 and 2003 you had a quasi war in which intermittently bombed Iraq. It was really just one big long conflict....and still is. We're 23 years into a modern Hundred Years' War.

I think Heywood's reading of the Iraq war is essentially accurate. We maintained a no-fly zone over Iraq (which in international law is an act of aggression) in the years after 1991. Shooting hostilities occasionally arose in that intervening decade.

Whether this is a 100 Years' War is open to question. But relations between Iraq and America never normalized between the two wars, and acts of war intermittently passed between the two countries.

None of that should be construed to justify our 2003 invasion.