Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Bill Clinton booed at Super Bowl   (newsmax.com) divider line 306
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13151 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Feb 2002 at 1:45 PM (13 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



306 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-02-04 05:24:33 PM  
"I agree, but I think that the point is that if the US goes after say Iran or N. Korea in 5 years they could threaten a launch at the US. This would alter our actions and I think that is what we are trying to avoid."

This is a good point. One would hope that the US would have enough resources to go in and take out a handfull of ICBM sites before it lauched any full scale attack on said country, therefore eliminating their ability to fire them off (with N. Korea or Iraq where they would be very primitive and limited--forget China or Russia). However, being that they Indian and Pakistani underground tests caught us off guard, it does make one a little less confident in our abilities to know what is going on in the world.
Cocheeze: I don't think too many leaders are suicidal. They get the suicidal lunatic fringe to do that kind of work for them (take bin Laden, not exactly offering himself up freely as a martyr now, is he?). Problem is, I don't know if there is a suicidal lunatic fringe capable of secretly moving around an ICBM from country to country. It's not like they're something you can put into a suitcase and launch from a pickup.
 
2002-02-04 05:26:25 PM  
The article was biased- perhaps a lie, and these people who think that Bush is a great leader are delusional. No president is a leader. He has too many people leading him.
 
2002-02-04 05:26:29 PM  
For Sudan being so apparently helpful, they sure didn't come off as it

strike that, was thining of Suadi Arabia at the time, didn't mean for "sudan" to sneak in there (nor the "for being so appearntly helpful, it was part of a sentence i decided not to include due to length reason)
 
2002-02-04 05:29:05 PM  
"but Iraq and Iran and terrorist groups don't care what happens to them. THEY DIE FOR THEIR CAUSE."

With Iraq and Iran you are mistaken. Dictatorial leadership never dies for their cause. Their cause is to stay in power, not Islam, or socialism or any other -ism. They have no problems with getting some freaks to go blow themselves up in the name of a cause, but the leadership is never ready to die.
Terrorists might be able to develop a nuclear bomb (or better yet, steal one for the former Soviet Union). An ICBM is a completely different story. Put a nuke on a boat and park it off the coast of Manhattan and NYC and all the evidence are gone in a nice big mushroom cloud. Traceable to terrorists? Maybe. So the trade center planes were tracable to the terrorist leadership. Have we gotten them yet?
 
2002-02-04 05:29:37 PM  
Newsmax sucks. Read their story on Lay's wife. They spent half the article gutting out the Clintons!
 
2002-02-04 05:31:53 PM  
Let me join the chorus:

PLEASE stop accepting NewsMax submissions!
 
2002-02-04 05:32:42 PM  
Sorry, for the delay. I went out to get burnt. OK,

Fuzzymonkey,

real liberal democracy should not and does not seem to require such lavish pagentry. It seems, dictators, facist regimes and the like have needed to go to such lengths to remind their citizens of just how good their government is.
 
2002-02-04 05:34:43 PM  
FifthColumn:
It's archived on the LA Times site, search on the Author MANSOOR IJAZ and look for the Dec 5th article. However, for some reason you have to pay for the article. If you can find it somewhere else please post the whole thing. I saw the author talk about this on Fox and CNN when he was making the rounds. I haven't check their sites yet for info.

The Saudi deal was not to arrest Bin Laden it was to kick him out from Sudan to Saudi Arabia. Saudi's didn't want him in their country because he wants to overthrow their government. Bin laden was then sent to Afghanistan. Of course, we have now learned that it would have been better for the US to leave him in Sudan since we had more connections and more informants that knew what was going on in Sudan than in Afghanistan. That was another big failure of the Clinton administration. He wasn't trying to arrest him, he was just telling Sudan to kick him out of their country.
 
2002-02-04 05:35:16 PM  
Yep, I said that.
You really did get burned, didn't you dude?
:)
 
2002-02-04 05:40:24 PM  
Sorry, for the delay. I went out to get burnt. OK,

Fuzzymonkey - "real liberal democracy should not and does not seem to require such lavish pagentry. It seems, dictators, facist regimes and the like have needed to go to such lengths to remind their citizens of just how good their government is."

But the existence of lavish pageantry is not in itself evidence that it is manufactured by a fascist regime. Somewhere in the world a people take place in a display is obnoxious as this and are sincere. When the demonstrators in Pakistan burned our flag and shouted death to America, death to Bush that was over the top and I believe they meant it.
 
2002-02-04 05:41:42 PM  
Damb, I posted accidentally, wrote somemore and then double posted. Now I'm telling everyone. Damb this pot!!!!!
 
2002-02-04 05:43:52 PM  
Clinton is such a waste of time and blather. And there's no finer proof than the fact that the City of Berkeley, California gave him a medal last week. Anything that they do is intrinsically FUBAR. And when you throw Barbara Boxer in for the ride, you know it must be a steamin' shiat heap. Has anyone in the world ever seen a picture of her when she didn't look like a three day old dead carp...eyes rolled back, mouth wide open...oh, wait, that's probably why Slick Willie let's her follow him around.

Bah!
 
2002-02-04 05:45:20 PM  
Desynch & Bad C I got in trouble for causing 'off topic' threads and upsetting certain farkers.....However, I have been to go to the forum....


So seeing as how I'm not allowed to say anything 'off-topic' I am going to patrol the threads and point out everytime someone does it....Oh wait........that would be EVERY thread......


Yes, I'm annoyed....but hey, I got some actual work done during the 'break'.....
 
2002-02-04 05:47:09 PM  
Tick:

Tostfeld, my memory is fine, but you should remember that Hillary Clinton was not an elected official.

All the more disturbing that Cheney will not voluntarily offer the notes.
 
2002-02-04 05:47:13 PM  
WorldCitizen:
Do you think if we nuked Baghdad we would get Sadam? He would survive in one of his many bunkers, but now he would be the hero of the arab world for killing milliions of americans. Their leadership will not die as you pointed out with the terrorist. Which also destroys your whole point in the first place which was that they won't attack us with ICBMs because they will also die. Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

I've listed serveral reasons in other posts why MAD theory doesn't work for these countries. I don't want to go into it all again, but here is the summary.

If we were attacked by a nuclear missle we would not respond in kind. If Iraq nuked New York, we would not nuke Baghdad. We would not kill the civilians and people that we need to overthow him. Sadam doesn't care about his people anyway, he used chemical weapons on them already. Sadam would still survive a nuclear strike on Baghdad anyway and the problem would not go away until we put in troops to go find him. MAD does not work for these people that's why you must stop them before they have the weapons.

BTW, North Korea already has enough plutonium for at least two bombs and missles that can almost reach Hawaii.
 
2002-02-04 05:52:33 PM  
Mytwocents - okaaaaay ... now say something on-topic.

;)


Oh, here's mine: Jeezus-Pleasus - FUBAR ... effed up beyond all repair ... like BSD and stuff, dude?
 
2002-02-04 05:57:35 PM  
Labberdasher: traditionally: Recognition, but the judges will allow "repair."

Circle gets the square.

Clinton still boo'd.
 
2002-02-04 05:57:36 PM  
Mytwocents- are you being obstinant or just stupid?
It has nothing to do with being off topic. Threads always go off in tangents and nobody really minds that. Its taking over the thread to talk constantly about yourself and hanging around for the sole purpose of getting all the little boys to drool all over you.
Which is fine but has its place.
Wanna be a webwhore? Get a webcam and some one to host you. Unless you're actually interested in what others have to say (that is when they are not necessarily talking to or about you.)

You got booted, I think because in that thread some days ago you admitted to 'thread jacking.'
Not for being off topic.
All you're little friends whined on too. D
o you guys just not get it? Or is that 'why did they ban me' part of your trolling?
Capigula,
The people cheering and shouting in the streets in Pakistan (and I'm pretty sure it was established that that was file footage and did not occur on the 11th but anyway) were just that. Demonstrators that took to the streets. Not a huge corporate extravganza. And not to get to into it, but I realize that the government itself did not produce the superbowl of course but the corporate interests are so hard to untangle from our politicians thatit might as well be.
 
2002-02-04 06:07:29 PM  
FuzzyMonkey,

Sorry, I got lost on another page. To be perfectly honest I'm too high to argue now. I thought the game itself was terrific. What an ending.
 
2002-02-04 06:12:40 PM  
We all know damn well that if Al Gore was president, he would have acted the same. Nothing would be different. Bush is only popular because of the dumb ass terrorits from September 11th. That's it. There is NO OTHER reason. Sept 11th was the best thing to happen for Dubya. After 2 years, his popularity will slide and he'll be just like daddy.
 
2002-02-04 06:13:13 PM  
Capigula- Totally cool. I was having fun, but gotta get home anyhow. And I don't wanna kill yer buzz :)
I thought the game rocked. What an ending,indeed.
 
2002-02-04 06:16:17 PM  
Jeezus-Pleasus - my favourite is NAF. Allegedly "No Apparent Function", marking all the stuff coming in during WWI that was either
a) from the enemy, and no-one knew what it was supposed to do,
b) FUBAR (of course), or
b) a piece of complete crap form the first day, and no-one wanted to admit to being able to repair it.

I just like imagining the situation ...

- Sir, we just got a ZingBat-100 in. Should we fix it?
- Nah, soldier, that's NAF.
- But Sir, I'm sure it's a ZingBat! Arkely could fix it, and you know all the specs. See? It even says it down the side he...
- Soldier? NAF, I say.
- Uh, yessir.


Um. Anyway. Clinton? Feh.
 
2002-02-04 06:23:37 PM  
Ramblinwreck - heh. That should bring the trolls out of the woodwork. And hey, I agree that this war thing is an often underestimated facet of the relationship between Dubya and the American public. Bit like an abusive relationship in a post-apocaliptic world. Sucks to be in it, but good to have a total dick protecting you, too. (come ouuuut, come ouuuuut, wherever you are ...)

;)
 
2002-02-04 06:23:53 PM  
MacV:
"Their leadership will not die as you pointed out with the terrorist. Which also destroys your whole point in the first place which was that they won't attack us with ICBMs because they will also die. Thanks for proving yourself wrong."

You know, I almost posted an added comment to what I wrote because I knew there would be someone out there that would not be able to understand the difference in what I said.
Then I thought, "no, surely they will see the very plain difference." But, MacV, you proved me wrong.
The leadership of a nation-state has a hugely different vested interest than that of an international terrorist, such as Al Qaeda and bin Laden. The leader of a nation-state only has power in the state that they lead. Saddam only controls the territory of Iraq. All of his power lies in Iraq. If a nuclear missile was launched at the US from Iraq, Iraq would be destroyed. The entire might of the US would fall on Saddam, much more strongly than it has on bin Laden. Even if Saddam did not die, he would be out of power and/or his power base would be destroyed. His entire life would then be over as it depends on him being in power. Same goes for Kim Jung Il. They are their nation-state. The leader does not exist independently. To lose power equals death. They are not suicidal; they are power hungry.
Now, on the the difference with an international terrorist. An international terrorist can move between nation-states and not lose any power. They have no set power base. There is no one waiting to overthrow them. They don't care if a city gets nuked as long as they've found their way out of the city first. They can hide and be out of communication. A national leader/dictator can do no such thing--they would risk being overthrown and hence, killed.
I am not as confident as you are that if we tracked an ICBM lauch from Baghdad that we would not launch in kind. We were not afraid to do it to the Soviets, the Chinese, or the Japanese in our military planning. I don't know what would make Iraq any different. Americans are already calling for Iraq on a platter and they haven't even been linked with 9/11.
And you're right, MAD would not work. Because there would be no "mutual" about it. The US would suffer a blow, the other nation would no longer exist. MAD requires both sides to be able to destroy one another. Only two nations on earth currently have MAD capability--Russia and the United States. China could do a lot of damage to the US, but not completely destroy it. We could wipe China off of the map. Again, that is not MAD.
 
2002-02-04 06:51:17 PM  
WorldCitizen: MAD doesn't protect us from crazy people who might get access to ICBM's and launch them without a care in the world of their own destruction (a very modern version of the suicide bomber). As nukes become more prolific, are ability to count on other countries to control them becomes less and less wise.
 
2002-02-04 06:54:17 PM  
..."our"...

I simply cannot write today.
 
2002-02-04 06:57:16 PM  
Yet another right-wing link on Fark...
 
2002-02-04 06:58:14 PM  
Ramblinwreck: Oh yeah Al Gore is SO much smarter than Clinton. He knows when to keep his pseudo-intellectual trap shut...except about being the father of the Internet and shiat. Oh, and when he's hustling campaign contributions from the Communist Chinese. Oh and then there's that big trap-open kiss of Tipper (why d'ya suppose they call her that?) at the convention. Yeah, he's fine presidential material.

*end rising to troll bait*
 
2002-02-04 07:30:20 PM  
hehehe... clinton's political career is as over as gore's. now for hillary to serve out her term...
 
2002-02-04 07:36:08 PM  
WorldCitizen:
Nice back-pedaling. They would get killed, they won't get killed. MAD works, MAD doesn't work. I've never seen somebody argue both sides of an issue like you before. I don't think you really know what side you are on.

"We were not afraid to do it to the Soviets, the Chinese, or the Japanese in our military planning. I don't know what would make Iraq any different."

And there in a nutshell is your problem.

Because there would be no "mutual" about it. The US would suffer a blow, the other nation would no longer exist. MAD requires both sides to be able to destroy one another.

HAHAHAHA, MAD does not mean you have to completely blow the other country to hell. HAHAHAHAHA. People like yourself complain when we kill a couple civilians in Afghanistan, after they killed thousands in the US. Do you really think the world would be OK with us nuking the Iraqi's because their leader, that the Iraqi people hate also, attacked the US? So, if you were the leader you would nuke the whole country of Iraq and then when Sadam didn't die, since there are no more people left to overthrow him because you just nuked them all, we would then have to send in troops to a radioactive environment to find him. HAHAHAHAHA Great Plan!

I love these conversations with you WorldCitizen. You are so out of touch with reality that it makes them great!
 
2002-02-04 07:59:25 PM  
Osama killed around 600 Americans while Clinton was in office. Blew the hole in our ship, Clinton did nothing.

And just how many of you Clinton-haters had even heard of Osama bin Laden before 9/11? Were there rabid op-ed pieces during the Clinton administration on his failure to go to war? No. You're revising the past to make Bush look good and it's pathetic. BTW, Newsmax is not at all trustworthy...one guy says that people booed....who the hell knows?
 
2002-02-04 07:59:57 PM  
Good. Clinton sucks.
 
2002-02-04 08:06:18 PM  
TheTick: I'm surprised that this made it past...

"Clinton was a better president than R.R ever was." RR won the Cold War. Clinton got a BJ from a dumpy intern. On the scale of global events....

Ronald Reagan DID NOT win the Cold War. He merely spent money on the military and watched the USSR defeat itself. The USSR just did not have the economic system to keep up with the US in an arms race. That is what caused the end of the war. Any decent military leader will recognize America's economic advantage and use it. Reagan did not have to do anything but be ready to fight.
 
2002-02-04 08:11:25 PM  
MacV: That situation makes MAD work MORE. Besides, if Iraq launched a nuclear strike EVERYONE would move out of the way of the US. They would be routing for us. Even 9/11 shows this. And that was not even a nuke. Plus an attack by Iraq would force all of NATO into the fight. Saddam is not that stupid. He won't attack the US directly. Israel? Probably. But not the US. At least not directly.
 
2002-02-04 08:14:47 PM  
Zardoz:And just how many of you Clinton-haters had even heard of Osama bin Laden before 9/11

Usama bin Laden was so well known that before 9/11 he even was photoshopped with a picture of Bert (wearing a muslim garb) from Seasame Street as a joke. He was fingered as the mastermind behind the first bombing of the WTC.

Newsmax is as trustworthy as "Mother Jones"...
 
2002-02-04 08:19:01 PM  
How bout that Budwieser commercial? Unbelievable. Corporate America has no shame.
 
2002-02-04 08:20:14 PM  
I think I can sum up this arguement:

Bill "Slick Willy" Clinton: Politically correct wangtastic jerkweed. He never should have been elected.

George "Duh-bya" Bush: The guy's an idiot. It's that simple. All of the other things that can be said about him stem from him being on the low side of the intelligence graph. He never should have been elected president.

Clinton: Didn't do a damn thing as warning afetr warning of both economic meltdown (not much of one though...) and terrorist attack came past his administration.

Bush: This guy has done NOTHING of long term effect during his term so far. The "War On Terror" has been coming ever since terrorism started pointing in our direction (early eighties, probably even earlier) and it would be as foolhardy to give him the credit for rooting out evil as it would be to give Clinton the credit for several prosperous years of bliss. A MONKEY could have steered the ship of state towards attacking terrorism.

To summarize:

Clinton wasn't responsible for the economy, one way or the other. The president has very, very little to do with keeping the economy on track (try blaming Greenspan). Plus, the economy does tend to go in cycles. In fact, Clinton's terms were more famous for the amount of personal problems he had than any serious policy decisions he made. Good things he did: Not much. Bad things he did: Eight years sure goes by you fast...

Bush isn't responsible for attacking Afghanistan, seeing as how he would have been thrown out on his ASS if he didn't. He's not responsible for the economic bubble burst either... except perhaps in the "confidence" area. Good things he's done: Hmm..... nothing much. Bad things he's done: Well, he's got quite some time left before I start making judgements about broken campaign promises, but it's looking like he isn't going to be very nice to the environment. Oh well.
 
2002-02-04 08:39:30 PM  
More post-modern relativist ig-nuh'ent venom here than any place else on the web.

The irony of Clinton reciting the Gettysburg address was the producers' best joke of the night. On October 17, 1996, in front of an audience in Santa Ana, Clinton said: "Our friends on the other side, they complain about government all the time. They set it up as the enemy, it's government versus the people.
The last time I checked, the Constitution said, 'of the people, by the people and for the people.' That's what the Declaration of Independence says."


Well the Constitution does not say that. Clinton swore to uphold the principles of the Constitution but, evidently never actually read (or "checked") it. And the Declaration of Independence doesn't say it either.
The Gettysburg Address contains the mythic invocation of "government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people" with a commitment that it not "perish from the Earth."
IMHO it was profane that the President did not know this, has obviously neither read the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, nor taken their principles to heart, and invoked this language with the intent to slander people with whom he had political disagreement.
I was crying with laughter last night when he read those words.
'night all.
 
2002-02-04 08:54:23 PM  
As I haven't read ANY of the previous posts (I'm sure the comments, by now, are way off topic) I'm giving my 2¢ about the article.

Slick Willie? Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
 
2002-02-04 09:08:34 PM  
The point of my post was not to endorse Al Gore for president. The purpose was to simply point out that any dumb ass in office right now would be riding high on public opinion polls. As soon as it wears off, he'll be in trouble because good things do not happen when the government increases spending and lowers taxes. Look back at Reagan when the unemployment was 10%+. As for booing the president, I don't see any other morons stepping up to the job. When so many people disrepect someone that was in that high of a position, it really pissed me off. Each president has had his ups and downs. Most of the time we remember the downs. Lets not forget the good. Rights always see the bad in lefts and vice versa. I lived a pretty good life during the Clinton admin, so why should I complain? I don't give a damn if he got head or not. Now, I can't get a decent paying job. Friggin 'eh, when Publix isn't hiring, you know something is wrong!
 
2002-02-04 09:35:00 PM  
In response to an earlier post, Clinton did not embarass the United States more than any other president. You have biatches like Linda Tripp and Ken Starr to thank for that. Believe me, if he had his choice, I don't think Bill would have chosen to have the entire world know about his private sex life.

If those men would have never flown planes into the World Trade Centre, everyone would still think Bush is a friggin' moron.
 
2002-02-04 09:49:19 PM  
Rakshasa:

Well said. I agree with you 100%. Now that that's been said, I think we need to get a president in office that is controlled by the PEOPLE of this nation. Not some corporate puppet. No scandals. I want to know exactly where my "tax" money is going. Furthermore, I want to control where my money goes. I want to control my social security account; Meaning, I don't want my money to go towards fruitless efforts like studies why monkeys throw feces. Every day our social security money gets dropped into a bottomless bucket, because EVERY president has funneled money out of social security. The government -- Democrat and Republican, Green or Independant, or whatever. The whole system is broken, and we the american people need to fix the system, or else our lives, as well as the lives of our parents and offspring are just going to get worse. You have the fabulous republi-muppets in the white house taking away our civil rights. Why? "For the good of the country." And the sheep out there are baaa-ing away like mad. Imagine that. The american people want their civil rights unconstitutionally violated. And this is someone that was "confirmed" by our elected officials!

Anyway, I think:
1. I've rambled on enough
2. I lost my train of thought.
 
2002-02-04 11:37:31 PM  
For everyone moaning about how Clinton didn't act against Osama the way W did are missing a vital point. Look at who was doing the fighting in Afganistan. It was overwhelmingly Afgan rebel troops fighting Taliban troops. Air support logistic support and all kinds of support was provided by the international troops, but it wasn't US servicemen taking the majority of the casulties. Every US serviceman who was killed was headline news. Did anyone remember seeing the casulty numbers of the Afgan troops on our side? Look at the US in Somalia (Black hawk down). US troops where killed on a mission. Public opinion was overwhelmingly "Get out, why are we fighting there anyway?"
Now these same people are the first to blame the Clinton administration for the September 11th attacks. "If we would have been harder on Osama in the past..."
Every president is terrorfied of getting into a Vietnam part II. Trapped in a war no one wants to fight, but if the president backs down he (and the USA) look weak. Even with the emotional climate after September 11th, if week in week out troops where coming home in body bags the support for the war on terror would evapourate. The reason it's lasting so long is that so far someone else has been willing to do the dying.
 
2002-02-05 12:40:59 AM  
MacV: Come back and make tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when you learn to get a clue. You honestly can't comprehend what I write, can you? You've become so set in whatever mind set it is that you can't understand it....You read it and then throw back arguments I didn't even make out of it...read it all. There is no black and white like you seem to think. Moving situation A slightly to the left or right completely alters situation B.
There was no contradiction there. There were different situations and different scenerios for different types of leaders/actors on the world stage. The same rule does not apply for an international organization (Al Qaeda) and its leadership as it does for a nation-state and its leadership. They have completely different stakes. We might not nuke Iraq if Iraq nuked us, but I can 100% guarentee that he and his regime would be finished. We would have every right to march in and destroy him under international law. (we did not in 1991). As Freddie^2 mentioned, a direct attack on the US by Iraq would invoke the NATO defense treaty, along with a host of others. NATO, along with Australia and others would be automatically in the war to destroy Iraq. I don't think some of you can see thru the propaganda to understand that dictators and terrorists have different motiviations. Dictators have to stay in power to live. They are not suicidal. Look how long Castro and Saddam have been around already. They plan on living long lives well into old age. Attacking the US directly would guarentee that they did not live to see next week. Saddam and Kim Jung Il cannot up and move their country as a terrorist organization can.

MacV: "Nice back-pedaling. They would get killed, they won't get killed. MAD works, MAD doesn't work. I've never seen somebody argue both sides of an issue like you before. I don't think you really know what side you are on."

You totally miss the point. I was not backpedaling. I was trying to explain the irrelevance of your point. If Saddam attacked the US directly, it would not matter at all to him if we nuked him or not. He would lose power and his life either in a puff of smoke in an atomic explosion, or in a bunker by special forces and smart bombs. In the end, its all the same to him--death and the end of his power; the very two things he cherishes most.
As far as MAD goes, you again miss the point. Do you know what MAD stands for? It stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. That means that both sides are destroyed as powers after a mutal exchange of nuclear weapons. No nation has the power to do that to the United States other than Russia. China could knock us back into a depression-like state, but not destroy the entity that is the United States (maybe in a few years with their buildup in response to SDI). One or a handful of poorly aimed missiles launched by a third rate power is going to cause a few million deaths in the US. We have almost 300,000,000 people. We would survive and so would our government (or type of government, anyway). The attacking nation would not. Therefore, there is no MAD when it comes to rogue states. Their launch would be Self Destruction, not mutually assured destruction. MAD is therefore a moot point unless you are talking about Russia and possibly China.
And addressing Glenlivid, no, it would not surprise me in the least if the US lost a city to a nuke tomorrow. But that loss is not going to be from an ICBM. There are much easier, more efficient and less suicidal ways to deliver a nuke to an American city.
 
2002-02-05 12:50:49 AM  
MacV: Oh, and MAD does mean that you blow the other country to hell. What exactly do you think destruction means? MAD does not mean killing everyone in a country, but it does mean disabling it as a functioning state and power. MAD means effectively taking out a country's ability to produce industrial goods and services and its ability to govern itself. You, therefore, reduce the country back to a disfunctioning non-entity. The destruction of the United States would involve taking out the major trade and manufacturing centers (cities), military bases, agricultural production and government. This cannot be done with a handful of nukes.
 
2002-02-05 01:25:20 AM  
Lemmings.

This is why I want to move to Canada.

The influence of the dollar will bestow upon us only mediocrity in the white house.
 
2002-02-05 08:28:28 AM  
Clinton got booed because people are finally realizing what scum he and his wife really are.
 
2002-02-05 11:45:20 AM  
Clinton is filth. However, it is unseemly for people to have booed him. And it sets a precedent for liberals to act like animals (um, more like animals) when a Republican appears somewhere. We should remain civilized and respectful.

On the other hand, the NYPD and FDNY were dead-on for booing Hillary, given what she has done to them as a group, not to mention her overall villiany. It's an absolute tragedy the boos were edited out on the broadcast.
 
2002-02-05 11:52:14 AM  
freddiemiles1

I was there. He wasn't booed!!! This is bullshiat.

And Lord knows we can all trust your view of events.

I get the farking Declaration of Independence

"The farking Declaration of Independence". Wow, you really are a piece of shiat. That was probably your only exposure to it.

Careful kid, you might accidentally learn something.
 
2002-02-05 12:29:36 PM  
Odietamo- I would trust freddiemiles more than Newsmax.
 
Displayed 50 of 306 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report