Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

I B Hankering · 03-21-2015, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Oh I see now....Clinton was "wrong" but Bush is a "liar"

And yes Underpants you are very ignorant. It's also very oblivious when you cut and paste the remarks you try to pass off as your own. They always lack the verbal vomit you usually spew.

But ignorance is not a bad thing and very curable so I am still holding out hope for you.

You're on your own with the Asshole thing.

+1

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. even though as between those two Clinton is the only one with a judicial finding that he's a liar ... aka ... perjuror ... and so affirmed by an administrative agency ....

"Funny" how that works ... they both were acting on the same "intelligence" gathering agency and the same U.N. resolutions with the same Congressional approvals.

+1

UnderConstruction · 03-21-2015, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Oh I see now....Clinton was "wrong" but Bush is a "liar"

And yes Underpants you are very ignorant. It's also very oblivious when you cut and paste the remarks you try to pass off as your own. They always lack the verbal vomit you usually spew.

But ignorance is not a bad thing and very curable so I am still holding out hope for you.

You're on your own with the Asshole thing.

Oblivious? I think you meant obvious. I've never cut and pasted anything and tried to pass it off as my own. If I paste anything that isn't original with me, I put it inside quotes or I provide a link. I've been in the writing business too long and that's not something I do. We didn't get into a war during Clinton's watch. Clinton didn't try to connect Iraq with 9/11. A connection which is complete bullshit and has been proven complete bullshit. So yes, he was incorrect in his assessment. Bush took it a step further and lied outright when the evidence wasn't nearly as strong. I voted for the guy the first time. I wish I hadn't, but I did.

UnderConstruction · 03-21-2015, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. even though as between those two Clinton is the only one with a judicial finding that he's a liar ... aka ... perjuror ... and so affirmed by an administrative agency ....

"Funny" how that works ... they both were acting on the same "intelligence" gathering agency and the same U.N. resolutions with the same Congressional approvals.

And they were both wrong...

HarleyRider96 · 03-21-2015, 02:09 PM

Glad I don't read these post very often. The only thing I see is alot of name calling and pretty vulgar in some cases. Maybe this is alot of the problem these days, be it in private, public or on capital hill. It's disgusting!

LexusLover · 03-21-2015, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

And they were both wrong...

.. along with just about every country in the "civilized" world, and some not so civilized, along with their respective intelligence agencies, and Saddam and his military, not to mention the CIA and a substantial majority of the Congress.

But I have a different "theory" ... none of the above were wrong or lied about it.

Clinton lobbed some shit over there and Bush fiddle-farted around with the U.N. so long Saddam was able to get the shit out of the country, except for crap he didn't or couldn't move at the last minute. But that's not the only "issue" with Saddam. Remember his government signed a "cease fire" agreement with conditions on it....and WMD's was just one of them.

UnderConstruction · 03-21-2015, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. along with just about every country in the "civilized" world, and some not so civilized, along with their respective intelligence agencies, and Saddam and his military, not to mention the CIA and a substantial majority of the Congress.

But I have a different "theory" ... none of the above were wrong or lied about it.

Clinton lobbed some shit over there and Bush fiddle-farted around with the U.N. so long Saddam was able to get the shit out of the country, except for crap he didn't or couldn't move at the last minute. But that's not the only "issue" with Saddam. Remember his government signed a "cease fire" agreement with conditions on it....and WMD's was just one of them.

But we didn't have ISIS...

Guest040616 · 03-21-2015, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Webb/Hagel 2016?

Has possibility's!

Are you on board?

TheDaliLama · 03-21-2015, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyRider96

Glad I don't read these post very often. The only thing I see is alot of name calling and pretty vulgar in some cases. Maybe this is alot of the problem these days, be it in private, public or on capital hill. It's disgusting!

Go fuck yourself you hippy puke.

We're having fun.

Jackie S · 03-21-2015, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You ignorant dumb fuck- Was Saddam despicable when he gassed his own people, but the U.S still had ties with him many years after the incident. I guess he wasn't too despicable during the 8 years we funded him during the Iran-Iraq conflict? Was the Shah of Iran a model leader? Didn't we support his regime even though he crack down on anyone who opposed his regime?
Also, there are some reports that are well documented that Kuwait was "slant drilling" hence stealing oil from Iraq. Imagine if Mexico was to slant drill and steal oil from the U.S.

Iraq would have been much better off with Saddam in power than these ISIS guys who have emerged. Saddam was a moderate muslim- women were allowed to drive, become educated, drive, etc. Saddam was opposed to Al-Queada and any of it's influences. Now look what we have created!!!!

Yeh, that Joe Stalin guy was a pretty good dude too, once you got past the millions, and millions, that died because of his actions.

I think we have sunk to a new low when we start looking for the positive aspects of the Saddam Regime.

But I agree, (as I alluded to in my post), he did keep a tight leash on the Religious Fanatics who are proving to be even more dispicable than he.

By the way, if you are going to address me personally, keep it civil or simply put me on your ignore list.

JD Barleycorn · 03-21-2015, 09:41 PM

If you want to get down and dirty about it maybe we should ignore tyrants as long as they stay inside their own countries. Like Khadaffi did the last few years of his life. The problem is that they get froggy and want to bother their neighbors and threaten the big dog (that's us).

Speaking of that, didn't you love how Obama made a speech to the people of Iran about having a fresh start...after he did nothing to spread the Arab Spring to Iran. Little late big guy.

Obama's primary foreign policy advisor-Hussein El Fat Azzz

CuteOldGuy · 03-21-2015, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Go fuck yourself you hippy puke.

We're having fun.

+1

TheDaliLama · 03-21-2015, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigtex

Has possibility's!

Are you on board?

If I may take off my ideology hat and put on my political hat...I size them up like this.

I think Webb is a very interesting person but I don't think he has the good political instincts to be a successful president. I hate to say it but superfical things like hair, looks, posture, skin color, gender and voice is what gets people elected. That's why I don't think Walker has a chance. A bare knuckles, take no survivors politician gets the job done. Webb doesn't have a prayer.

I have alway considered Hagel to be a lightweight but more electable than Webb. It didn't surprise me that he took the job of SOD and I was not real impressed with the job he did except for one thing...he stood up to BO and told him how the cow eats the cabbage, which got him "retired" so that he could spend more time with his family.

NEXT!

Guest040616 · 03-21-2015, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

If I may take off my ideology hat and put on my political hat...I size them up like this.

I think Webb is a very interesting person but I don't think he has the good political instincts to be a successful president. I hate to say it but superfical things like hair, looks, posture, skin color, gender and voice is what gets people elected. That's why I don't think Walker has a chance. A bare knuckles, take no survivors politician gets the job done. Webb doesn't have a prayer.

I have alway considered Hagel to be a lightweight but more electable than Webb. It didn't surprise me that he took the job of SOD and I was not real impressed with the job he did except for one thing...he stood up to BO and told him how the cow eats the cabbage, which got him "retired" so that he could spend more time with his family.

NEXT!

I suspect that Webb has a slim to none chance of being the Democratic nominee but until he drops out of the race, I am on his bandwagon.

As for Hagel, there is not much likelihood that he will be the VP choice unless a candidate like Webb is the nominee. And I've already referenced that remote possibility.

LexusLover · 03-22-2015, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

But we didn't have ISIS...

Yes. ISIS was matured under Obaminable.

LexusLover · 03-22-2015, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

I hate to say it but superfical things like hair, looks, posture, skin color, gender and voice is what gets people elected.

The packaging sells laundry soap. What's inside is pretty much the same.