 pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to Angrychair
Re: Whatever...said by Angrychair:
I'm guessing that he's referring to the lack of any presented evidence to prove your case.
Ok, here you go: On not getting osama into custodyand On arming North Korea |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 2:37 pm · (locked) |
|
newsmax.com? Just perusing the site for a few minutes I counted 4 articles on the front page slamming democrats. Either you're trying to make a good joke by posting 'proof' from a news source of this kind, or you're on the fringe reactionary right wing.
Which is it? Better yet, when is the next clan meeting?
LOL
[text was edited by author 2002-10-31 16:26:47] |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 3:36 pm · (locked) |
| Angrychair |
Seriously, though, can you post a link to any sort of credible news site? (it doesn't have to be an American news site, as long as it's more than just another political vehicle for the reactionary right) |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 3:38 pm · (locked) |
 Count Hogula$Notorious Dog
Premium Member
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA |
|
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 3:46 pm · (locked) |
 YowzaaahOurs Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH |
to Angrychair
Um, there's an MP3 of Bubba speaking, I'd think that would make the bias of the site irrelevant wouldn't you? |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 3:47 pm · (locked) |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
|
to Angrychair
I can tell you don't read the site much, because if you did you would find a fair share of articles and columns attacking Bush as well. Maybe you're just not used to a site which presents all the facts... and its quite humorous that you don't consider a news site to be credible simply because they don't report stories that you don't like.
Besides, I don't know how you can argue with Clinton's own words saying osama wasn't a threat even though he had blown up 2 embassies, an army barracks, and financed the first WTC bombing by the time he said them.
But its so typical of liberals to shoot the messenger when they are presented with facts that they just simply refuse to agree with. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 3:47 pm · (locked) |
todd30
join:2001-05-13
Lake Dallas, TX |
todd30
Member
2002-Oct-31 4:22 pm
You're saying newsmax is credible? That's awesome! It's fun to watch a freeper blame everything on Clinton. Never mind the fact that under Clinton we had peace and the best economy in the history of the nation. The republicans hit Clinton with everything they could think of and nothing stuck. Live with that. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:22 pm · (locked) |
| |
to Count Hogula$
Thanks, Count, Those are at least reputable, although not exactly what the topic was about... Seriously, I'm not going to take a site that says something like this: » www.newsmax.com/archives ··· 43.shtmland this: » www.newsmax.com/showinsi ··· 0/140146as their headlines on the page, just don't instill me with confidence that I'm getting the unbiased truth. Anyway, like I said, a REPUTABLE site with news on this doesn't even have to be from america. It'd be great for it to be something more than a political pulpit. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:25 pm · (locked) |
smokeyjonLife Is Overrated
join:2002-06-11
Germantown, MD
|
to Yowzaaah
quote:
Um, there's an MP3 of Bubba speaking, I'd think that would make the bias of the site irrelevant wouldn't you?
Of course it doesn't. The vast right-wing conspiracy pieced that together using quotes from 8 years worth of tape. On a completely unrelated note, I will be holding a memorial service for my dead uncle tomorrow night. There will be a buffet, only people who I like are invited (others will be booed and heckled), and we will finish with light-hearted-but-absolutely-in-no-way-is-this-actually-a-political-rally "speeches from close friends and relatives about the deceased". [text was edited by author 2002-10-31 16:42:04] |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:30 pm · (locked) |
pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD |
to todd30
said by todd30:
Never mind the fact that under Clinton we had peace and the best economy in the history of the nation.
Mainly because Clinton allowed corrupt CEOs to lie about their earnings. Whoever thought it was actually possible for companies to have year after year of double digit growth? And of course you refuse to accept reality in that Clinton had 3 chances to get osama but refused. Maybe if he had taken osama then, the WTC would still be standing today. I suppose you also love the fact that he gave two of our sworn enemies (China and North Korea) nukes that will eventually kill us if we don't do something. Yea... 8 great years, too bad we may not live to see the rest of this century because of this fool. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:31 pm · (locked) |
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
morbo
Member
2002-Oct-31 4:43 pm
said by pnh102:
said by todd30:
Never mind the fact that under Clinton we had peace and the best economy in the history of the nation.
And of course you refuse to accept reality in that Clinton had 3 chances to get osama but refused. Maybe if he had taken osama then, the WTC would still be standing today. I suppose you also love the fact that he gave two of our sworn enemies (China and North Korea) nukes that will eventually kill us if we don't do something. Yea... 8 great years, too bad we may not live to see the rest of this century because of this fool.
omg. it's amazing that you believe that clinton is to blame for all of this. bush had his chance to interpret the intelligence. he could have listened to the warnings from numerous foreign intelligence agencies but he didn't. what do you have to say to that? fyi: don't buy into the China is evil line coming from our government. the whole 'china spy plane' drama back in 2001 was used by our government to create another evil empire to take the place of russia. now we must fear them for some reason. what is it again? |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:43 pm · (locked) |
smokeyjonLife Is Overrated
join:2002-06-11
Germantown, MD |
said by morbo:
omg. it's amazing that you believe that clinton is to blame for all of this. bush had his chance to interpret the intelligence. he could have listened to the warnings from numerous foreign intelligence agencies but he didn't. what do you have to say to that?
fyi: don't buy into the China is evil line coming from our government. the whole 'china spy plane' drama back in 2001 was used by our government to create another evil empire to take the place of russia. now we must fear them for some reason. what is it again?
If you honestly believe that China is anything but: 1. A country that has no concept of "human rights" 2. A country that has no concept of "freedom" or "liberty" 3. A country that regards an informed population as a dangerous thing 3. A country that poses a bigger threat to the world than the USSR ever did then you need to get your head out of the sand and open your eyes. Unfortunately, China is nowhere near as backwards as North Korea, who are just as bad. China will have a manned space program operating soon. China will have the ability to mass produce ICMBs that can reach anywhere in the world, if they don't already. China lacks the clarity of "reality" in regards to the rest of the world. An armed and aggressive China would be disasterous. An arms race with them ala the Cold War could have a very different ending. Deterrence and M.A.D. won't work with them in the same way it worked with the Soviets. Do not underestimate the danger they present to EVERYONE, not just the United States. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 4:54 pm · (locked) |
| |
My brother worked in the defense industry during the Clinton presidency. He was at the black level of security in the nuclear program. At least once a year, representatives from the NSA would round all of the scientists up and remind them of their duties to keep everything secret. They consistently identified CHINA as the biggest espionage threat to the US. A couple of thousand years ago, the Chinese were considered the best at espionage. Now, they've had a couple of thousand years experience at it. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 5:25 pm · (locked) |
Count Hogula$Notorious Dog
Premium Member
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA |
I don't see how ANYONE could see China as anything other than a threat to US national security. Their defense spending is increasing at huge rates. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 5:33 pm · (locked) |
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 |
to smokeyjon
said by smokeyjon:
If you honestly believe that China is anything but:
1. A country that has no concept of "human rights"
2. A country that has no concept of "freedom" or "liberty"
3. A country that regards an informed population as a dangerous thing
3. A country that poses a bigger threat to the world than the USSR ever did
then you need to get your head out of the sand and open your eyes. Unfortunately, China is nowhere near as backwards as North Korea, who are just as bad. China will have a manned space program operating soon. China will have the ability to mass produce ICMBs that can reach anywhere in the world, if they don't already. China lacks the clarity of "reality" in regards to the rest of the world.
An armed and aggressive China would be disasterous. An arms race with them ala the Cold War could have a very different ending. Deterrence and M.A.D. won't work with them in the same way it worked with the Soviets. Do not underestimate the danger they present to EVERYONE, not just the United States.
1. who is saying that china has fantastic human rights record?
2. china doesn't have to have the same ideals of freedom and liberty as us.
3. we agree on this.
4. no way in hell. what are you basing this on? the population? in that way, yes, china is a larger threat to the world. but in any other way no.
who cares if china has a manned space program?! they already have nukes! how does the u.s. turning it's population against china accomplish anything?
china is already armed and relatively agressive (tiawan, but that's another issue). why do we have to have an arms race with china? hopefully it won't lead to ww3, but with the b.s. and propaganda that bush and gang is spouting about china who knows?
fyi:did you know that bush "ACCIDENTALLY" changed the entire u.s. policy on tiawan because he misspoke? i believe it was during an interview before the election. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 6:40 pm · (locked) |
| morbo |
to Count Hogula$
said by Count Hogula$:
I don't see how ANYONE could see China as anything other than a threat to US national security. Their defense spending is increasing at huge rates.
flawed logic. you assume that because their defense spending is increasing then they are more of a threat. in that way, we -the us- are a threat to the entire world because our defense spending is increasing also. even without the increase, we spend more on defense than ANY NATION IN THE WORLD so we are truly a threat to everyone. but wait... i suppose we are the standard by which the entire world should base themselves on, so it's ok, right? |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 6:45 pm · (locked) |
smokeyjonLife Is Overrated
join:2002-06-11
Germantown, MD
|
to morbo
You are contradicting yourself. Your last message agrees with me, and then says that I am wrong. For instance: quote:
fyi: don't buy into the China is evil line coming from our government. the whole 'china spy plane' drama back in 2001 was used by our government to create another evil empire to take the place of russia. now we must fear them for some reason. what is it again?
You say that China is only evil in a fabrication created by the Bush administration. I listed many reasons why you are completely wrong: quote:
1. A country that has no concept of "human rights"
2. A country that has no concept of "freedom" or "liberty"
3. A country that regards an informed population as a dangerous thing
3. A country that poses a bigger threat to the world than the USSR ever did
Your responses to these points: quote:
1. who is saying that china has fantastic human rights record?
2. china doesn't have to have the same ideals of freedom and liberty as us.
3. we agree on this.
4. no way in hell. what are you basing this on? the population? in that way, yes, china is a larger threat to the world. but in any other way no.
I will now dissect these and explain why you are wrong: 1. Their human rights record is reason enough to brand them evil and to fear them. If a government can and will actively deprive its citizens of food, shelter, or LIFE, that is a Bad Thing®. 2. Freedom and liberty are not subjective things. They are concrete, objective truths, and if the Chinese *government* is an impediment for their citizens to exercise them, then the Chinese government is wrong and dangerous. 3. This goes hand-in-hand with #2. Information is power, and power is freedom. 4. Not in terms of population. The difference between the Soviets and the Chinese is in world outlook. The Soviets were EXTREMELY calculating and stepped very cautiously (with a few exceptions, like Cuba and Afghanistan). While the Soviets never really understood or believed the United States, they factored this "unpredictability" into their decisions, and became somewhat predictable themselves. China has a dangerously self-centric worldview, and can't be "relied" upon to act the same way. They are more dangerous in the sense that they are much more unpredictable. After all, how much respect for world opinion can a country have when it has a (very public) domestic policy of forced abortion? China's manned space program is a concern isofar that it shows the level of sophistication in China's overall space effort. They could conceivably use this in information warfare, the destruction or disabling of our critical satellite networks. Realize that China is *not* involved with the ISS. I believe that China did sign the treaty to prevent space-based weapons, but just ask North Korea how much treaties can count for. Yes, they have nukes, but their missile technology is suspect. Clinton authorized the sale of some missile technology to them, but it is unclear whether they have the ability to manufacture reliable ICMBs. This isn't about turning the US population against anyone. It's about awareness. China is the last great hostile superpower in the world, and they must be watched very, very carefully. [text was edited by author 2002-10-31 19:11:18] |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 7:09 pm · (locked) |
| |
|
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 7:47 pm · (locked) |
Count Hogula$Notorious Dog
Premium Member
join:2002-06-19
Corona, CA |
to morbo
Wrong...frankly I don't give a crap what people think of us...but while liberal do gooders had their heads in the sand the Soviets became a world power and threatened the world. Now here we are 50 years later and what are liberals doing...putting their heads in the sand as another superpower emerges to threaten the world. We see what treaties and talk gets us...North Korea and their nuclear weapons program...Middle East peace.
Rouge states are going to do what they do unless an ACTIVE role is taken to stop it. Talking to these people solves NOTHING. The only thing these nations understand is force. Talk to them is weakness. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 7:55 pm · (locked) |
| Count Hogula$ |
to Microhard3
Wonder what the caption says..."Ha ha, silly do gooders paid for these missiles and traded the guidance systems for a few million in campaign contributions. Little did they know that we would have an ICBM within 10 years Ha ha." |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 7:58 pm · (locked) |
| |
to todd30
said by todd30:
You're saying newsmax is credible? That's awesome! It's fun to watch a freeper blame everything on Clinton. Never mind the fact that under Clinton we had peace and the best economy in the history of the nation. The republicans hit Clinton with everything they could think of and nothing stuck. Live with that.
A basic understanding of economics would tell you that a president has very little to do with the economy. Clinton did nothing magical or spectacular that made everyone want to go out and spend. I guarantee you that if Clinton had served from '96 to '04, we would have still had the mild recession that we faced. btw - yes, the economy hasn't been doing as well but in reality the US is still very strong. We haven't seen double digit unemployment nor have few people been going to the poor house. If you can't find a job nowadays it's either A) you're too picky or B) too lazy. that's what it comes down to. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 8:53 pm · (locked) |
| |
to Count Hogula$
It is in Korean....but I believe the translation is something like....get them before they get us.
Don't hold me to that, something like that however. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 8:59 pm · (locked) |
| |
to Angrychair
It sounds like you find the sites non-credible because there are stories slamming dems. It's a typical liberal attitude to equate open mindedness with agreement and intelligence and closed mindedness with disagreement and stupidity. Of course, we all feel that way until we reach the age of 5 or so..... |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 9:38 pm · (locked) |
| |
to HawkI911
I think HawkI911 says it allBTW, HawhI911, you must have a job...unlike the millions out of work who, in order to be considered part of the unemployed, are actively seeking work and would take a job if it were available. I think you should personally contact all the unemployed engineers, tech workers, communications workers, steel workers, textile and garment workers, etc. with your magic list of positions that need filling. I'm sure the picky, lazy bastards would love to hear from you. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 9:41 pm · (locked) |
| |
Svengally to smokeyjon
Anon
2002-Oct-31 9:46 pm
to smokeyjon
Re: Whatever...To say that you're right would be to say that 9-11 wasn't a great day. China intends to be THE (hardly benevalent) super power by 2050. A date made possible if not probable by the Clintons. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 9:46 pm · (locked) |
| Svengally |
Svengally to HawkI911
Anon
2002-Oct-31 9:58 pm
to HawkI911
Sure, and I'd also add that while the ecomony does have overnight reactions to this or that, some effects take quite some time to be felt. The prosperous "Clinton" years were more likely attributable to Bush Srs economic plan. They lasted as long as they did because Clinton didn't actually "do" much of anything and allowed the Republican Congress to continue. It wasn't until recently that Clinton's bad effects and split Congress finally caused a recession for which Ww is blamed. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 9:58 pm · (locked) |
 Jackson$Need It Wrecked? 1-800-Marine
join:2001-11-17
Buffalo, NY |
to todd30
Peace? Tell that to the friends I lost in Somolia and the later Yugoslov ( read: Non Nato to begin with ).
You can sit and argue politics all day long while myself and others paid the price for it in Blood!
Your a disgrace kid. |
· actions · 2002-Oct-31 11:01 pm · (locked) |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium Member
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
Zoom 5341J
|
KrK to pnh102
Premium Member
2002-Nov-1 1:33 am
to pnh102
NewsMax.com, Ho Ho Ho!
How about you read the TIME article magazine about how Clinton's administration gave the Bush Administration a full briefing on Bin Laden and their contingency plans to deal with him... before the administration change. Too bad the new Administration sat on it and didn't use any of it UNTIL 9/11... then they put it into effect... too late. |
· actions · 2002-Nov-1 1:33 am · (locked) |
| KrK |
KrK to pnh102
Premium Member
2002-Nov-1 1:44 am
to pnh102
said by pnh102:
Mainly because Clinton allowed corrupt CEOs to lie about their earnings.
BUSTED... That is all due to the "Republican Revolution" and the much loved "Contract For (ON!) America"... Yes, it's true... The "Contract On America" contained much DEREGULATION of accounting rules and oversight, it DEREGULATED mergers and dividing lines between financial firms and banks, audit firms, stock brokers, insurance, and so on and so forth. Now here's the real facts: Clinton veto'd the 'deregulation' legislation which loosened accounting standards and oversights ... and his veto was overriden. Under the "new" rules, evolved the corporate scandal, the accounting fraud, the auditors cooked books... Sorry pnh102, this dog won't hunt. You don't have to take my word for it, you can check it for yourself. In summation: Republicans sweep into power in Congress pass the "Contract on America" Clinton veto's but is overridden Accounting fraud and scandals result. So, just go on saying it's all Bill's fault. If enough people repeat it, it will become true. Oh and BTW just why won't Dick Cheney and Bush answer questions about their "Private" industry work? Oh and btw where is this deal about Clinton "giving" nuclear weapons to the Chinese and North Koreans? |
· actions · 2002-Nov-1 1:44 am · (locked) |
| KrK |
to footballdude
said by footballdude:
My brother worked in the defense industry during the Clinton presidency. He was at the black level of security in the nuclear program. At least once a year, representatives from the NSA would round all of the scientists up and remind them of their duties to keep everything secret. They consistently identified CHINA as the biggest espionage threat to the US. A couple of thousand years ago, the Chinese were considered the best at espionage. Now, they've had a couple of thousand years experience at it.
Dude! Don't go confusing these right wingers with the TRUTH. They'll label you a "Commie-Pinko TreeHugger" (Or say you work for the 'Liberal' media) and ignore what you say. I mean, they already ignore reality.... |
· actions · 2002-Nov-1 1:46 am · (locked) |
