it's always fun to hear liberals explaining away blatant hypocrisy when they would need absolutley less to call a conservative a hypocrite.

I knew I would come in here and I had fun reading the article with a liberal slant trying to guess at just what word their mind would turn off. Screw the context of the whole article.

Clinton said,"What if he fails to comply and
we fail to act?" the president asked. "Well, he will
conclude that the international community has lost its
will. He will then conclude that he can go right on
and do more to build an arsenal ofdevastating
destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you,
he'll use the arsenal."

there was talk of last chances and acting for years. Don't get pissed if a man came in and believed what all of your hero's had been saying but had the balls to act. Did Clinton believe what he said above? Why didn't he act then if he "guarantee(s)...he'll use the arsenal" ???!?!

Let me guess, you will blindly walk around that one as well. I wouldn't expect anything less...

ZipBeep

You're clueless.

Here's another thing. Do you notice how the NeoCons ALL hate Daschle? But they never say why. It's just 'I hate Daschle!'

I suspect this is a Karl Rove operation. Daschle must be dangerous to NeoCons and Karl Rove is practicing some dirty tricks on him.

libruls suck
conserverowackos suck
republicrats suck
be independent we don't need homogenized crap on both sides

TheMonz

ZipBeep

You're clueless.

TheMonz comes in with an erudite post. AAAAAAAYYYY, MONNNNZ!

If I'm so clueless, it should be easy for you to refute what I said. Right?

Holy shiat.. an article posted to Fark that doesn't bash republicans?? This will of course mean 10 more will come through that go the other way. But WTH..

Kerry is an asshat, he and Dean should go get a room.


AK

ZipBeep

I will tell you the main reason why I am not a NeoCon:

I don't support our stance in Israel. NeoCons are just liberals trying to co-opt conservative ideas.

Daschle is a classical NeoCon, so I don't know what you're talking about. Daschle is pro-Israel. I want us the HELL OUT OF THAT MESS.

You've got old liberals who are not pro-military and are clueless in foreign policy. This is just a way conservative liberals, red dog dems and non-traditional dems to re-invent themselves and co-opt the republicans.

Kerry's just another "I'll say anything to get elected" tool.

Vote for Howard Dean

Kerry has done some truly idiotic things, like supporting the Patriot Act. Hopefully he'll announce it was a mistake, though I am not crossing my fingers.

From a scientific point of view, testing the WMD hypothesis made sense. Then we got a chance to see it up close with a U.N. regime, and ignored the results that told us we'd been wrong.

Don't forget that U.N. inspectors claimed to have destroyed a shiatload of weapons in about 1998. (see Council on Foreign Relations website)

daschle and kerry should be given matching "i'm with stupid" shirts

Farking Corksucker
/snip a lot of ranting...
there was talk of last chances and acting for years. Don't get pissed if a man came in and believed what all of your hero's had been saying but had the balls to act. Did Clinton believe what he said above? Why didn't he act then if he "guarantee(s)...he'll use the arsenal" ???!?!

Let me guess, you will blindly walk around that one as well. I wouldn't expect anything less...

Well, according to Peter_hook in this:

What's wrong with you? Do you think anyone with even average intelligence can connect economic prosperity to what a lame duck president did with a bunch of republicans who ran him like a puppet? Heck, if we're saying your crap is true, then credit the republicans. They controlled the country from the House and Senate and Clinton couldn't scratch an itch without asking a republican.

Sounds like it was the Republican Congress that made all the decisions in Clinton's lame duck year. I would think you would be happy with Clinton - he bombed Saddam repeatedly (with the support of the Republican Congress, BTW), which apparently convinced Saddam to destroy his WMD, or else we would have found it, right?

Dr3w

daschle and kerry should be given matching "i'm with stupid" shirts

Dick Cheney owns ALL of those now.

06-19-03 08:29:14 PM Eraser8

Theculturedredneck writes: Its not about conviction or principle, its about sabotaging those who are in power if they aren't you or your friends.

How, exactly, does this differ from the Republican jihad against President Clinton?


So how does this differ from the Democrats jihad against President Bush?

So now the Democrats do it and it is O.K.? Circular BS from the two major parties.

YAWN

If it wasn't for clinton we wouldn't be in this mess!

Eraser8

It is absolutely the truth.

Ok, what policies and laws enacted by Clinton personally (or his gang) were directly responsible for the economic boom. Furthermore, explain how any president has been able to instantly change anything economically. Explain how an economic recovery that was already building when he took office has anything to do with some specific action he took.

That's a rather nebulous charge. Can you be more specific?

Give me a list of things Clinton pushed for and got. And don't name partial-birth abortion. Things that affect the economy. Give me a list of bills he signed into law and their subsequent economic indicators. Also, tell me whether or not they were authored by republicans (they were) and what the riders were from the democrats under direction by Clinton to get him what he wanted.

The internet boom was not as big a contributory factor to economic growth as some people have made it out to be. Internet activity's principal virtue was increasing capital gains tax receipts.

And trickle-down economics is all a big lie. I was selling computer consulting at the time. Companies sold stock, raised capital and hired people and bought things. End of story.

The media aren't liberal.

Here's an example: My girlfriend was watching the news today about theraputic cloning. They didn't call it a baby or a fetus, but an embryo. Embryo is a liberal's term, baby is conservatives. The correct term is fetus. Just off the top of my head.
market that started its collapse under Clinton.

First, how the hell would Bush have been able to statutorily "fix" the stock market? Second, the stock market is a reflection of the economy, not its driver.

I was being faecititous in saying that other than tax cuts or things involving trade, government has little to do with the economy. Even Greenspan has little to do with the government. Which party elects him? Who voted for him in the public?

Not totally responsible. But, when government spending accounts for about one-fifth of the total GDP, when government controls the money supply, when government has broad powers to shape consumer behavior though taxation, the government has a hell of a lot more influence than anything else.

Listen, I've done most of my work in the past 10 years with the government, so I know what they spend and how they spend it. It's our tax dollars, not theirs. They don't control the money supply, banks and the fed do. It's one person, Alan Greenspan. But that's all beside the point. They spend what we allow them. But if you're for that, and believe it, you should be ROOTING for Halliburton to rebuilt Iraq because if it's our tax dollars, it should go back into the USA to hire Americans to do the job!

What Republican control of the Congress did is lock in President Clinton's original budget blueprint (which was passed when Democrats controlled both houses). OBRA93 guided the government's entire fiscal policy throughout the mid- and late-90s.

And how about the tax cuts? Were those Clinton's ideas? Or did it come from pressure from the right? The only time Democrats push for tax cuts is when it's inevitable and they want to either co-opt a Republican's ideas or increase spending and size of gov't elsewhere by giving cuts to their specific constituents, just like the Republicans do but are derided for by the Democrats.

Sounds like it was the Republican Congress that made all the decisions in Clinton's lame duck year. I would think you would be happy with Clinton - he bombed Saddam repeatedly (with the support of the Republican Congress, BTW), which apparently convinced Saddam to destroy his WMD, or else we would have found it, right

Yes I backed Clinton when he called for strikes and if given the information he thought they were necessary. Some called it "wag the dog" and I could give a crap about the timing...it strikes me of the type of blind partisan crap like I am hearing now. The same Repubs that criticized the timing of the Clinton strikes would have supported them if Clinton was a conservative. That is B.S.
Just like you all looking past the blatant hypocrisy of Daschle and Kerry et all is B.S. because you would pull a 180 if Bush were a lib. Both sides are a bunch of elitist who think they know how best to run other adults lives. that is why I am for freedom for the individual. That usually finds me on the libertarian right.

I really don't care what Kerry said in 1998. If he's the Democratic nominee, I'll vote for him.

I voted for Nader in 2000, but I'll vote for a quadraplegic chimp if that's who the Dems put up against Shrub.

Peter_hook

They have no platform. Being contradictory isn't a platform, and they can't take credit for any conservative issues.

An example of a current political debate:

"Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: No you didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Yes I did.

Man: You didn't.

Mr Vibrating: Did.

Man: Oh look, this isn't an argument.

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.

Man: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is!

Mr Vibrating: It is not.

Man: Look, you just contradicted me.

Mr Vibrating: I did not.

Man: Oh you did!!

Mr Vibrating: No, no, no.

Man: You did just then.

Mr Vibrating: Nonsense!

Man: Oh, this is futile!

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: I came here for a good argument.

Mr Vibrating: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.

Man: An argument isn't just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: It can be.

Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.

Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.

Man: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'

Mr Vibrating: Yes it is!

Man: No it isn't!

Man: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

(short pause)

Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.

Man: It is.

Mr Vibrating: Not at all. "

Osmodiar,

You might as well vote for a chimp with what your vote is going to get you in 2004!

Peter_hook
I will tell you the main reason why I am not a NeoCon:

I don't support our stance in Israel. NeoCons are just liberals trying to co-opt conservative ideas.

I hate to be so negative, but somebody posted the other day that they didn't vote for Bush II, and later I realized it possibly meant they voted for Pat Buchanan. So, let me ask, you don't support our stance in Israel. What does that mean, exactly? It seems our stance in Israel changes every week.

Daschle is a classical NeoCon, so I don't know what you're talking about. Daschle is pro-Israel. I want us the HELL OUT OF THAT MESS.

www.newamericancentury.org is the NeoCon bible. Look it up. See how it relates.

've got old liberals who are not pro-military and are clueless in foreign policy. This is just a way conservative liberals, red dog dems and non-traditional dems to re-invent themselves and co-opt the republicans.

Versus Bush II's foreign policy of wars of aggression and alienating old allies? Talk about clueless. Everyone who thinks Bush II is going to win in 2004 should be reminded that he LOST the popular vote when MOST people in the US thought he was going to be a new, more moral President - a "compassionate conservative" - well, we found out that he is no "compassionate conservative" and really, except for his "God is on our side" talk, not very moral. Remember, Bill Clinton went to church every Sunday, too. (Bush II doesn't do THAT, does he? Wasn't that Sunday morning when he fell off the Segway?)

Hail to the Chimp!!!!

Kitschnsync

Interesting. Do you have a news letter?

You have to say "Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter."

Well, I never really mention my ideas, just shoot down all of the tired old liberals and conservative BS people pass back and forth uselessly.

Anyway, it's pretty simple: All Americans would be compulsed into militia service during their final 2 years of high school on a reserve status. It would teach basic defense, and we would have a militia like Switzerland.

After that we would have private security companies (which we do currently, but are not used by the gov't out in the open) with military experts that would be contracted in times of need, if it happens, but our policy would be to stay out world conflicts. If we had to send troops with the UN, we would hire these people go for us. Something similar is going on in Congo right now. The UN isn't doing squat, but some private mercs are doing a decent job. It would be cheaper and easier for the UN to hire them to fix the whole mess.

Anyway, even though everyone would have to serve, no one would be compulsed to be sent to war. It's simply civil defense, nothing more. You would teach people patriotism and gun responsibility for one. The Swiss all have guns, but no problems...could it be because they have them for the original intention of OUR founding fathers? For a militia and civil defense? They take it seriously and we do not?

06-19-03 08:58:40 PM Fark It

They have to pick a moderate, and yes that means they need to pick a conservative democrat, like Lieberman. .

No, we don't. We need to pick someone that will stand up and call out Bush and Associates. Vocally. Possibly rudely. That's why we don't need another Gore, and we certainly don't need someone more on the right than gore (Lieberman). We need to rile up Americans. Not many people get to hear the truth about this admin., and that's because the "liberal media" oversaturates the market with Limbaugh, Weiner, Hannity, so on.

No, we need someone to get up there and simultaneously tell the truth about Bush's stringmasters in an "I'm out for blood" sort of way. Americans will like it, because Americans love a fight, and 70% of this country honestly cares NOTHING about politics. It's only what's entertaining them from a day-to-day basis. Why does everyone love the war, yet not care whether or not we were lied to about the reason for entering said war? Because we're that dumb. God bless entertainment, it's an I.V. stuck straight into the brain.

Al Sharpton: He is the epitome of liberal class and race baiting!!

Eraser8 I said more than what you quoted in your reply. Answer my whole post, or do not bother. Oh wait your party can do no wrong. That is why I hate the two party system. It breeds thoughts like yours. My way or the highway. The republicans do it. The Democrats do it.

The Democratic party will also have to somehow spawn/create another Ross Perot.

Yes, never any left-wing introductions to articles.

And yes, that damned Drudge is just spinning things, what with giving lengthy quotes from Kerry and all. The nerve of him.

Dead really quick too, people just aren't trying today.

Fark It

I think Fark needs a poll, where the libs pick the best democratic candidate, and the conservatives pick the one they are most afraid of.

It's called the Primaries. They start next spring.

You can tell which ones the conservatives are most afraid of by which one the bash the most. Right now, I would say that is Hillary and Daschle. But, apparently, Kerry is now in the sights of Karl Rove and his dirty tricks team.

ZipBeep

I hate to be so negative, but somebody posted the other day that they didn't vote for Bush II, and later I realized it possibly meant they voted for Pat Buchanan. So, let me ask, you don't support our stance in Israel. What does that mean, exactly? It seems our stance in Israel changes every week.

All we have done is prop up puppet governments and influence others. Hypocritically, I might add. We should not sell weapons to Israel, we should not sell them to anyone unless they use their own money. We give billions in foreign aid to them every year, we should give them nothing. If we give aid, it must never be used for any military purpose, defense or oppression. Humanitarian only.

Versus Bush II's foreign policy of wars of aggression and alienating old allies?

If you have rules, and you have to play by them, do them as good as you can. For example, I mentioned the other day that I am against welfare reform. Now I want welfare eliminated. There are better ways. But if we're going to have it, don't cripple it and make it useless and more harmful than it already is.

If we're going to be warlike, then let's take out oppressive governments. If this is our way, let's do it as well as we can.

As far as alienating our allies, allies are people who stand behind you. France manipulated the UN to serve their own national interest. They were not our ally. They thwarted UN inspections, were against the war in Kuwait. France is given a permanent veto in the UN because they are supposed to be impartial enough to act in the best interest of the world, ie UN. Protecting their oil contracts with Iraq does not benefit the Iraqi people. It doesn't benefit the mideast peace process, which cannot go forward as long as suicide bombers are being bankrolled by Iraq. etc etc.

"compassionate conservative" - well, we found out that he is no "compassionate conservative"

Popular vote doesn't matter, electoral does. And his "compassion" doesn't matter either. All that matters is if people think he is addressing their concerns as best as he can, and most people believe that.

Will his tax cuts work? Probably not. Too little, too late. Will liberating Iraq crack down on terrorism? Probably not.

Will his tax cuts give him a platform that shows his commitment to cutting down the size of government? Yes. And people are growing to agree with that more and more every day. Will liberating Iraq cause Palestine to become a nation? Probably so. Things you can't concieve of now were probably the plan all along.

Frankly, my idea is that invading Iraq was based upon several things:

#1 Warning Muslim dictators that they are not safe.
#2 Pushing forth creation of a Palestinian state
#3 Wresting military control from the UN who has not done a good job

And there's a lot of related things to those that Republicans will be able to show have value, and take credit for. If there's one thing those thick-headed Republicans have learned is to NOT let Democrats take credit for Republican ideas. So now they "lie" to misdirect the Democrats, do their own thing, and then claim it's a success and catch the Democrats totally off-guard. Just wait and see.

New flame war on located in the "Pooty-poot" thread in 5, 4, 3, ....