Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/23/07 05:57 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

Vote Dennis Kucinich guys, he's the one and only fit for the job.
Don't fall for what the media tells you, vote your conscience.

Fight to keep kids off crack.

At 12/22/07 07:48 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Interesting.
547,500 compared to 63,000.
Yay!

That is about as irrelevant as it gets. You can't take a four day bombing and pretend like that would happen everyday. Bottom line is, that 1200 iraqi lives have been lost in a matter of 4 days in the invasion as well. You're simple math is too simple, since we're not talking about a mathematical equation, it's fucking war.

how many soldiers did Clinton loose? How much money? How many innocent Iraqis?

Oh joy, another Busher trying to blame the war on Clinton. Funk says "It's not the american president's job to solve the problems of the world, only the problems of america." Then I ask, how in the hell was Iraq a problem to America? Besides Saddam being a dick to you guys?

Bush started the war in Iraq, Bush is the one that turned Iraq into a cesspool of violence, Bush is the one responsible for the thousands of innocent lives lost in Iraq since 2003. Your efforts to blame Clinton are hilariously ridiculous..

At 12/23/07 09:23 AM, bcdemon wrote:
Bush started the war in Iraq, Bush is the one that turned Iraq into a cesspool of violence, Bush is the one responsible for the thousands of innocent lives lost in Iraq since 2003. Your efforts to blame Clinton are hilariously ridiculous..

I really is getting desperate. The only thing you have Clinton on is NAFTA. You cannot blame the current war on a past president.

I blame Vietnam on JFK cuz he's a Democrat, and I like Nixon.

At 12/23/07 09:29 AM, SlithVampir wrote:
I blame Vietnam on JFK cuz he's a Democrat, and I like Nixon.

Wait... are to trying to blame the Vietnam war on on Nixon, just to give yourself something that looks like an analogy? lol

Now I know you're not implying the gulf of tonkin really happened?

At 12/23/07 11:44 AM, emmytee wrote: Now I know you're not implying the gulf of tonkin really happened?

Thats LBJ...

At 12/23/07 09:29 AM, SlithVampir wrote:

I blame Vietnam on JFK cuz he's a Democrat, and I like Nixon.

Nixon was the guy who withdrew... which lead to the slaughter of 3 million in Vietnam.

At 12/23/07 11:50 AM, therealsylvos wrote: Thats LBJ...

good point lol

At 12/23/07 10:58 AM, therealsylvos wrote:
Wait... are to trying to blame the Vietnam war on on Nixon, just to give yourself something that looks like an analogy? lol

I'm having kind of a bad day. Shoulda said LBJ.

RHYMES!

At 12/22/07 11:40 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: False in that not all US oil comes from a war-torn region such as Iraq.

SSSSssshhhh..... don't spoil it. Noone needs to know that America is actually FULL of petroleum, we just aren't willing to ruin our own ecology to get it when there are other less developed countries we can buy it from cheaper.

But true in that the multitude of weapons that have flooded into the middle east for decades from western and eastern interests were mainly bargaining chips for oil contracts. Those weapons in turn emboldened a leader like Saddam to invade Iran and Kuwait over oil-field ownership, meaning that one way or another, oil is at the very heart of the reason for America's continued involvement in the region.

Good point. Desert Storm I was technically Kuwait, not Iraq, so Bush I didn't technically start anything with Iraq so much as defend Kuwait.

And don't worry, we all know who sold Sadam and for that matter Iran their chemical weapons: THE US. That's how we really know Sadam had WMD: we still had the receipts from when we sold them to him.

I'm certainly no huge bush fan; I never voted for him. However, I get REALLY tired of people blaming problems on just one person that are actually caused by system-wide corruption. Our blame fixes nothing.

Vote Obama.

I'm certainly no huge bush fan; I never voted for him. However, I get REALLY tired of people blaming problems on just one person that are actually caused by system-wide corruption. Our blame fixes nothing.

Vote Obama.

I'm really not sure how you link these points. It seems to me that you're using some level of historical determinism in the first few posts in this thread, then move on to a kind of systemic determinism. Both positions would hold that the election of a certain individual over another is unlikely to produce much change in the outcome of the (historical or political) system. To put it another way, if the system is corrupt and constrains the action of Presidents, what is Obama, as President, going to do differently?

I'd like to bring up another fun Clinton fact. Anyone remember "no ground troops in Kosovo?" Well good golly, what happened there? And it turns out we backed the wrong side?! Wait, wait, sorry. The only thing Clinton did wrong was get a blowjob in office, my bad guys.

Old news is simply to old.

At 12/23/07 04:00 PM, Ss2-teen-gohan-Ss2 wrote: Old news is simply to old.

Except when it's relevant. Oh wait, you were repeating a 4chan meme. UPROARIOUS! I declare this the most original gag of the century. Bully!

At 12/23/07 03:59 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Wait, wait, sorry. The only thing Clinton did wrong was get a blowjob in office, my bad guys.

well that's what he was impeached for anyways. Oh wait sorry my bad, it was because he was LYING about the blowjob (oooh scary). Lets just ignore the fact that this administration has outright lied about torture, nooo that's not an impeachable offence.

A blowjob is adultery, adultery makes god cry. Torture is just inflicting severe pain on other human beings, That's A-OK!

At 12/23/07 04:21 PM, Musician wrote: A blowjob is adultery, adultery makes god cry. Torture is just inflicting severe pain on other human beings, That's A-OK!

Getting a blowjob is not an impeachable offense. Lying isn't an impeachable offense, lying about a blowjob isn't an impeachable offense. Lying under oath about getting a blowjob is an impeachable offense.

Oh yeah, and committing perjury and obstruction of Justice are also impeachable offenses.

The funny thing is, perjury can land in you prison for up to twenty-years. Clinton got off easy.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/multimedia/t imeline/9809/starr.report/grounds/g1.htm

At 12/23/07 04:21 PM, Musician wrote: well that's what he was impeached for anyways. Oh wait sorry my bad, it was because he was LYING about the blowjob (oooh scary). Lets just ignore the fact that this administration has outright lied about torture, nooo that's not an impeachable offence.

A blowjob is adultery, adultery makes god cry. Torture is just inflicting severe pain on other human beings, That's A-OK!

Thanks for only picking up on the satirical part of my post and making it seem like it was serious. Great comprehension on your part, but that's fine. Ignore the actual bullshit he pulled. I'll play this game.

I guess selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions is peachy, too, right? Not like that'd be high treason and punishable by death or anything.

At 12/22/07 07:18 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:
Well, clinton never admitted it was a war, he just kind of killed a lot of people in relative secrecy. Kind of like how he got out of the WhiteWater real estate scandal, really.

True. Of course if you read "The Prince", Machiavelli tells "princes" or leaders in general that sometimes they need to go to war to make themselves look better and divert attention away from any possible scandals. Still not justifiable though.

Also, remember, it's in the rebuilding that we're getting bombed, in the shipping of aid that we're having our convoys IED'd. No reconstruction = no occupation.

Maybe Maddox's idea of using pennies instead of bombs would have been a better idea.

"And got out." As in, he ran into the country, killed a shitload of people, and left the place a smoking crater. Yeah. Great diplomacy. Next time around, Bush tries the same thing, and the Dems won't just let him leave like Clinton could.

This is only partially true. Bush has said that it is a bad idea to leave Iraq because it would leave it in chaos (event though its already halfway there). Maybe he did just want to bomb and leave at first, but his stance on that issue has changed.

Moot. I'm just trying to prove Clinton was no golden boy. He was just a better spin artist aka liar than Bush.

I agree, Clinton wasn't all that great. It's just the way you worded your original post it sounded like you were taking all of the blame off of Bush or at least condoning his actions because Clinton did it.

thanks for seeing things my way.

Thats how I roll.

At 12/23/07 04:33 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Thanks for only picking up on the satirical part of my post and making it seem like it was serious. Great comprehension on your part, but that's fine. Ignore the actual bullshit he pulled. I'll play this game.

I guess selling nuclear secrets to the Chinese for illegal campaign contributions is peachy, too, right? Not like that'd be high treason and punishable by death or anything.

yeah that is interesting, so why did we impeach clinton for the blowjob? If Clinton really did sell nuclear secrets to the chinese, that certainly should have been the case used to bring him out of office. But no.. we impeach him for oral sex, nice work conservatives, I can see your priorities are all sorted out.

of course Clinton looks like a girl scout compared to Bush's luggage. known and unkown

At 12/23/07 05:19 PM, Musician wrote: yeah that is interesting, so why did we impeach clinton for the blowjob? If Clinton really did sell nuclear secrets to the chinese, that certainly should have been the case used to bring him out of office. But no.. we impeach him for oral sex, nice work conservatives, I can see your priorities are all sorted out.

of course Clinton looks like a girl scout compared to Bush's luggage. known and unkown

I don't know. Like I said, Clinton should technically have met the ugly side of a firing squad. At least Bush could claim that the WMD's were there because, you know everyone, including the UN said they were there. The breaches of Constitutionality are pretty fucking insane, but we have Congress to blame for that, too.

At 12/23/07 05:57 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: the obviousness of his impeachment is becoming less ignorable,

There's been talk of his "pending impeachment" since long before the 2004 elections, shaggy. I think it's about time that you woke up and realized the truth; President Bush will not be impeached before he leaves office in 2009. There's not enough support for it on both sides of the aisle, there's not enough time to mount an investigation into why he should be impeached, and there's not enough time to hold the subsequent hearings and trials. And even if it COULD be accomplished, you would just wind up with Cheney in office until the end anyway.... are you going to try to impeach him as well?

Don't fall for what the media tells you, vote your conscience.

You want us to vote YOUR conscience, there's a difference. And I question if you're even conscience to begin with.

At 12/23/07 09:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: Oh joy, another Busher trying to blame the war on Clinton.

Funk is an independent, and voted green party back in 2004. Calling him a "busher" for this topic is about as dumb as me accusing you of the same, bc. All you're doing is resorting to bullshit tactics and subject changes to avoid the topic at hand; Clinton bombed innocent Iraqi's when there was no actual evidence of WMD's. If Bush should be tried as a War Criminal for his actions in Iraq, so should Clinton, they're both just as equally guilty on the matter.

At 12/23/07 05:42 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't know. Like I said, Clinton should technically have met the ugly side of a firing squad.

I think that says a whole lot about you. no offense.

At least Bush could claim that the WMD's were there because, you know everyone, including the UN said they were there.

Not that there was any real evidence supporting Bush's desire to enter Iraq. In fact there was evidence that suggested there were no WMDs that was outright ignored. Bush was incompetent, there should be no debate.

The breaches of Constitutionality are pretty fucking insane, but we have Congress to blame for that, too.

Yeah the Republican dominated Congress from 2003

At 12/23/07 06:10 PM, Musician wrote: In fact there was evidence that suggested there were no WMDs that was outright ignored.

"Drumheller said that, before the U.S.-led attack on Iraq in 2003, the White House "ignored crucial information" from Iraq's foreign minister, Naji Sabri, that indicated Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction."

We already had it on the authority of Hans Blix -- the UN Weapon's inspector that I quoted earlier in this topic -- that Iraq's weapons declarations were incomplete and misleading at best. We had no reason to trust Naji Sabri after what Blix had come forth and reported, thus why he was ignored.

Bush was incompetent

And you're illiterate.

At 12/23/07 05:47 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/23/07 09:23 AM, bcdemon wrote: Oh joy, another Busher trying to blame the war on Clinton.

Funk is an independent, and voted green party back in 2004. Calling him a "busher" for this topic is about as dumb as me accusing you of the same, bc. All you're doing is resorting to bullshit tactics and subject changes to avoid the topic at hand; Clinton bombed innocent Iraqi's when there was no actual evidence of WMD's. If Bush should be tried as a War Criminal for his actions in Iraq, so should Clinton, they're both just as equally guilty on the matter.

Did you even read the link? Clinton bombed Iraq in a response to Saddam Hussien putting new restrictions on investigations. The Operation Desert Fox bombing was meant to weaken Iraqs ability to create weapons, and to warn Saddam Hussien that restricting investigations would not be tolerated NOT to start a war with Iraq.

At 12/23/07 06:10 PM, Musician wrote: I think that says a whole lot about you. no offense.

Actually, it says a lot about the law, since, you know, the penalty for high treason is death. Yes, even in states that don't have the death penalty. It's a matter of federal law overriding state law. I stated a hard fact. Selling critical secrets to a country like China is high treason and is punishable, in all cases, by death. No offense.

The firing squad comment was more of that satirical language. I should have remembered that you don't handle that too well, sorry, oversight on my part.

Not that there was any real evidence supporting Bush's desire to enter Iraq. In fact there was evidence that suggested there were no WMDs that was outright ignored. Bush was incompetent, there should be no debate.

And yet, I'm not justifying what Bush did. Woah! Just because I said that Clinton is worse because he had absolutely nothing to go off of in going into other countries even after promising he wasn't going to is worse than going after a perceived threat to the United States based off of bad intelligence that EVERYONE had at the time doesn't mean what Bush did isn't also bad, it's just not AS bad.

Sure, it's bad that Bush invaded Iraq, the timing was off, the intelligence wasn't there and, as the CinC, he's left holding the bag, that's how the chain of command works. However, at least it was for a perceived military threat that the UN even told us and at least he didn't say that he wouldn't send any troops there and then send troops there at the earliest possible convenience.

Yeah the Republican dominated Congress from 2003

What's your point? That was what I said, right? The Congress that passed the USAPATRIOT Act was Republican, it's common knowledge, I don't get why you said that. Unless, of course, you're trying to make that a barb because you think I'm a Republican. Of course, there's no basis for you to think that unless you equate bashing Clinton's ridiculous misuse of power to me being Republican. That's the only logical conclusion I can make out of that response. Seriously, that's pretty fucking sad.

At 12/23/07 06:20 PM, Musician wrote: The Operation Desert Fox bombing was meant to weaken Iraqs ability to create weapons,

That would imply they had the ability to massively produce said weapons to begin with, of which you cannot honestly believe if you follow the typical leftist rhetoric of Iraq never having had them to begin with.

and to warn Saddam Hussien that restricting investigations would not be tolerated NOT to start a war with Iraq.

So Clinton elected to take Unilateral Action against Iraq in spite of International Law.... isn't that typically viewed as a terrorist action these days?

At 12/23/07 06:29 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Actually, it says a lot about the law, since, you know, the penalty for high treason is death. Yes, even in states that don't have the death penalty. It's a matter of federal law overriding state law. I stated a hard fact. Selling critical secrets to a country like China is high treason and is punishable, in all cases, by death. No offense.

Laws aside, the fact that you would have a man put to death says alot about how much value human life.

And yet, I'm not justifying what Bush did. Woah! Just because I said that Clinton is worse because he had absolutely nothing to go off of in going into other countries even after promising he wasn't going to is worse than going after a perceived threat to the United States based off of bad intelligence that EVERYONE had at the time doesn't mean what Bush did isn't also bad, it's just not AS bad.

I'm glad you don't agree with Bush, but he certainly is worse then Clinton. The destruction of habeas corpus.Warrantless NSA Wiretapping. the Leaking of the CIA agent to the press. The holding of US citizen as an enemy combatant without any evidence. Practicing Torture. The list goes on and on and on.

as for the supposed sale of nuclear secrets to China. There really isn't any conclusive evidence supporting this, only an "anonymous scientist" who contacted newsmax. The officially report suggests espionage, which to me seems more likely.

Not saying Clinton is a saint, but that sounds like a conspiracy theory much like bush being behind the 9/11 attacks.

At 12/23/07 06:34 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 12/23/07 06:20 PM, Musician wrote: The Operation Desert Fox bombing was meant to weaken Iraqs ability to create weapons,

That would imply they had the ability to massively produce said weapons to begin with, of which you cannot honestly believe if you follow the typical leftist rhetoric of Iraq never having had them to begin with.

That was still being investigated at the time. Saddam was putting restrictions on investigations. We now know that he did so, to make it appear to Iran that he did have a nuclear weapons program, but at the time we did not know.

and to warn Saddam Hussien that restricting investigations would not be tolerated NOT to start a war with Iraq.

So Clinton elected to take Unilateral Action against Iraq in spite of International Law.... isn't that typically viewed as a terrorist action these days?

Not really, the attacking of the weapons facilities had tactical gain to it, terrorists tactics usually involve attacking civilians for the sake of attacking civilians and inflicting fear in the "enemy".