Print

[pug_ster]

The impeachment was not about having an affair with Monica, rather lied about it.  Yeah, that's what millions of our tax dollars was used for.

[pug_ster]

Shows that most Americans was sick and tired of the trial.  

http://news.bbc.co.u..._out/278019.stm

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 16 2006, 11:27 PM)

The Republicans complaining that Democrats have no plan is clearly a smokescreen of Republican's failures. The Democrats can ire retreat all they want but Bush won't listen to them so what's the use?

It's not a smokescreen until someone shows this plan. Nobody has, nobody will commit to anything. YOU'RE providing the smokescreen to make an excuse for your party not having a plan.

QUOTE

The Gingrichites who staged Clinton's impeachment are not of moral ground. Newt, Richard Armey, Tom Delay, Henry Hyde, Robert Livingston, and Dan Burton, who burned Clinton have marriage issues or corruption issues. Those same type of people from the Republican corruption machine protected Bush from being investigated. Since they lost their majority, the Democratic Congress will be pushing the buttons on what kind of investigations they want. When the investigation on how Americans are misled on going to War on Iraq goes full swing, the republicans have to distance themselves from Bush and those Repubs won't be talking about 'staying the course' in Iraq anymore.

First of all, lying under oath is unconstitutional and grounds for impeachment. That answers all of the following remarks intended for entrapment. Why was I asked that anyways? The guy was impeached... face it. Your remarks on Bush being proven of wrongdoing are again outlandish. Give it up. You're not miss cleo.

[pug_ster]

Oh please, if what Clinton did in his personal life and doesn't conflict he does as president, it doesn't matter as long it is not illegal.  Last I heard, having an affair might be immoral but not illegal.  You ever seen any Democrats and Republicans are being investigated let alone impeached for doing so?  No.  Those Gingrichites forced Clinton to come out to answer those stupid personal questions while Gingrich himself doesn't have to stand up under oath to be questioned about his extramarital affair.  Other presidents are known to have extramarrital affairs but did the congress impeach them because of that?  no.  Meanwhile Gingrich spends more taxpayer money on other meaningless investigations like whitewater, filegate, and travelgate.  

Going back to your subject on "winning war on terror' and win the peace at Iraq is just pipe dreams now.  The problem with Bush is that he wants to spread his ideals and his 'democracy' on those who don't want them.  He knocked Iraq down and thinks Iran, Syria and all the other 'terrorist' regimes will fall like dominoes.  Instead they gotten more united against US and because they feel their religion and way of life is attacked.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 01:02 PM)

Oh please, if what Clinton did in his personal life and doesn't conflict he does as president, it doesn't matter as long it is not illegal. Last I heard, having an affair might be immoral but not illegal. You ever seen any Democrats and Republicans are being investigated let alone impeached for doing so? No. Those Gingrichites forced Clinton to come out to answer those stupid personal questions while Gingrich himself doesn't have to stand up under oath to be questioned about his extramarital affair. Other presidents are known to have extramarrital affairs but did the congress impeach them because of that? no. Meanwhile Gingrich spends more taxpayer money on other meaningless investigations like whitewater, filegate, and travelgate.

Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. Fortunately there are courts to decide on this matter. We all know what they decided You're barking up the wrong tree on this one because you didn't, you aren't and you will never win it.

QUOTE

Going back to your subject on "winning war on terror' and win the peace at Iraq is just pipe dreams now. The problem with Bush is that he wants to spread his ideals and his 'democracy' on those who don't want them. He knocked Iraq down and thinks Iran, Syria and all the other 'terrorist' regimes will fall like dominoes. Instead they gotten more united against US and because they feel their religion and way of life is attacked.

 

If we don't win the war on terror and it's not possible, then what alternative does that leave? Seriously think about what you're saying. You don't make nearly as much sense as you think you do.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 17 2006, 09:30 PM)

Look, we can go back and forth on this all day. Fortunately there are courts to decide on this matter. We all know what they decided You're barking up the wrong tree on this one because you didn't, you aren't and you will never win it.

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush.  You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.  
 

QUOTE

If we don't win the war on terror and it's not possible, then what alternative does that leave? Seriously think about what you're saying. You don't make nearly as much sense as you think you do.

http://www.cbsnews.c...in2195169.shtml

Problem with you is that you are ignorant and don't see things others in the world sees it.  You think that every country out there is fighting Bush's war on terror and agrees with Bush 100%.  Bush thinks that he can call Iran and Syria the axis of evil and everybody else would agree.  Yet countries like China or Russia still trades with them and they will probably get nukes unless Bush does something about that.  Most of the Iranians thinks that it is their right to acqure nuclear weapons.  So what else to do, maybe we can start nuking China and Russia because they are helping Iran.  And then we can nuke Saudi Arabia because the people there provide the finances for 9/11.

Face it, Bush can't push his 'conservative compassion' policy to the middle east let alone to the US.  Sometimes it is better to nothing than to make things worse.

[pug_ster]

Other countries don't really care about 'our democracy' and defense capability.  Other countries admire us because of our culture and free market society.  We couldn't pry into countries like China with the threat of weapons.  Instead we made our influence by giving them ideas of individual ownership, listening to our rock music, and promise of jobs so that they can make our crap.  We ran away from Vietnam 30 years ago yet they welcome us with opening arms today because they want the very same things that China got.  Yet there are countries like Cuba where we still have nasty cold-war relations with because we have trade embargos with them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10533439/

Countries like Iran was taking in some of our culture until a hard liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt that our cultural influence have a negative effect.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 03:13 PM)

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush. You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.



http://www.cbsnews.c...in2195169.shtml

Problem with you is that you are ignorant and don't see things others in the world sees it. You think that every country out there is fighting Bush's war on terror and agrees with Bush 100%. Bush thinks that he can call Iran and Syria the axis of evil and everybody else would agree. Yet countries like China or Russia still trades with them and they will probably get nukes unless Bush does something about that. Most of the Iranians thinks that it is their right to acqure nuclear weapons. So what else to do, maybe we can start nuking China and Russia because they are helping Iran. And then we can nuke Saudi Arabia because the people there provide the finances for 9/11.

Face it, Bush can't push his 'conservative compassion' policy to the middle east let alone to the US. Sometimes it is better to nothing than to make things worse.

 

Well first off don't tell me what I think because not only are you totally wrong on everything, you are so far out there in all of your posts I'm wondering if you were in the slow class growing up. Put the Star Wars book down for a second Mortimer. I'm so tired of you trying to rip on me but then if I use the word "you" in a sentence you cry about how i can't talk about the subject at hand but rather, you. You're a hypocrite in the worst way.

 

Anyways, Bush didn't call those people "the Axis of evil" to garner support. He called them that because he declared war on terror and they are the ones supplying the people, money, and equipment to the major terror organizations. These other countries will only care if it's in their best political interests... hey that's politics. It's not as easy to get support when you're no more important to the countries you'd like to sway than the people you're trying to sway them against. Iran and Syria are assets as far as resources go. Everyone knows that and nobody wants to cut off their nose despite their face. We've been attacked inadvertantly by these people because they are fighting a proxy war with us through the terrorists. We have to protect ourselves, so what do we do?

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 17 2006, 03:13 PM)

We will see what happens in the next 2 years, and you will be complaining that Democrats have nothing to do but to dog Bush. You didn't even bother to reply and dismiss what I said because it is true and you don't even have a counter argument.

What do you mean "will be complaining the Democrats have nothing better to do but to dog Bush?". That's already the case. I don't need 2 years. In the recent election there was no Democrats running against the Republican candidate. They won running against Bush. They have been Bush bashing since he's been in office and finally wore the American people down. I didn't bother to reply because you're trying to fight a battle you've already lost. You're pathetic.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 18 2006, 04:41 AM)

Well first off don't tell me what I think because not only are you totally wrong on everything, you are so far out there in all of your posts I'm wondering if you were in the slow class growing up. Put the Star Wars book down for a second Mortimer. I'm so tired of you trying to rip on me but then if I use the word "you" in a sentence you cry about how i can't talk about the subject at hand but rather, you. You're a hypocrite in the worst way.

This is more like an insult thread to you than a topic talking about Al Qaeda and Republican defeat.  In any case, the more you talk, the more you stick your foot up your a$$.

QUOTE

Anyways, Bush didn't call those people "the Axis of evil" to garner support. He called them that because he declared war on terror and they are the ones supplying the people, money, and equipment to the major terror organizations. These other countries will only care if it's in their best political interests... hey that's politics. It's not as easy to get support when you're no more important to the countries you'd like to sway than the people you're trying to sway them against. Iran and Syria are assets as far as resources go. Everyone knows that and nobody wants to cut off their nose despite their face. We've been attacked inadvertantly by these people because they are fighting a proxy war with us through the terrorists. We have to protect ourselves, so what do we do?

In any case, you probably don't know that the US don't have the political power and influence or police other countries around the world, as much as the press would suggest that we could.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 20 2006, 09:04 AM)

This is more like an insult thread to you than a topic talking about Al Qaeda and Republican defeat. In any case, the more you talk, the more you stick your foot up your a$$.

Again, you show how you see everything backwards. I have never been insulting to you (that ended a few posts ago and I will never hold my tongue again.)even though you claim so. I brought up a topic and you never talked about it but tried to talk about several other topics. THEN once you realized you could get nowhere by diverting the attention off the subject you tried to talk about me. Too bad you're not smart enough and your views are too crazy for you to be able to do that.

QUOTE

In any case, you probably don't know that the US don't have the political power and influence or police other countries around the world, as much as the press would suggest that we could.

Again, don't tell me what I know and what I do not know. You have no idea.

[pug_ster]

Talking about nothing about the topic at hand, as usual.  

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2667654

In any case, idealists like Bush said we have to win the war on terror but have no plan on doing so.  Instead they create more enemies that hate and defy us.  Since. the US won't have 'peace talks' with Iran and Syria, they decided to have one without us.  Enemies or not, Bush made a huge mistake on not getting them involved on the peace process.  At least before Saddam was toppled, they are not friendly towards Iran or Syria.  Now it seems that Iraq will be close to those terrorist countries than ever before.  Oh well, we have to be on terrorist watch for the next several decades because of Bush.

[BCfosheezy]

QUOTE(pug_ster @ Nov 20 2006, 12:52 PM)

Talking about nothing about the topic at hand, as usual.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2667654

In any case, idealists like Bush said we have to win the war on terror but have no plan on doing so. Instead they create more enemies that hate and defy us. Since. the US won't have 'peace talks' with Iran and Syria, they decided to have one without us. Enemies or not, Bush made a huge mistake on not getting them involved on the peace process. At least before Saddam was toppled, they are not friendly towards Iran or Syria. Now it seems that Iraq will be close to those terrorist countries than ever before. Oh well, we have to be on terrorist watch for the next several decades because of Bush.

 

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.  

 

If you ever paid attention to what is said you'd know. The Generals on the ground are the ones that make the call on how many troops, when we pull out and so forth. The president is not micro managing. Your facts are all skewed. Since you say they have no plan(they have and always HAVE had, from day 1 the president said it wouldn't be quick. You seem to have forgotten that.), from your very article there are links to 3 proposed plans from the pentagon. http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2668070

 

Basically we all know you don't like Bush and you will lie and say anything to help others feel the same way. Stick to the facts..... oh wait those don't support your arguments.

[pug_ster]

QUOTE(BCfosheezy @ Nov 20 2006, 09:55 PM)

Blatant lies right there. Had you paid ANY attention at all. The so-called peace talks were to be directly with the United States. As you have so vigorously preached, the US does not run the world, so why is the US the only ones that should get involved with talks? The clear answer is since the world is effected by someone else acquiring nuclear weapons, everyone else should be involved. The US did not reject talks, they rejected being the only ones involved in the talks. Again you show hypocracy and your willingness to simply lie to get people to believe you is sad.  

More insults, more bs, no facts.  

U.S., France reject Iran request for more talks

QUOTE

If you ever paid attention to what is said you'd know. The Generals on the ground are the ones that make the call on how many troops, when we pull out and so forth. The president is not micro managing. Your facts are all skewed. Since you say they have no plan(they have and always HAVE had, from day 1 the president said it wouldn't be quick. You seem to have forgotten that.), from your very article there are links to 3 proposed plans from the pentagon. http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=2668070

What great timing of the this 'study' after Republicans losing the election.  Besides, Bush didn't even mention that he will follow either one of the 3 plans.

QUOTE

Basically we all know you don't like Bush and you will lie and say anything to help others feel the same way. Stick to the facts..... oh wait those don't support your arguments.

I don't think Bush is very favorable as a result of the war, not because he is a conservative.  So throw more insults and less facts, because you stick your foot up your mouth.

[BCfosheezy]

Also, if anyone besides fug ster  or throwingks ever actually reads these threads take a read here. This is from the man that fug ster thinks the US should have direct talks with. In short, he denies the holocaust ever happened and insinuates that the state of palestine is being punished for it. He also goes on to say that he can see the day when israel and US are wiped off the map. His actions support his claims because he funds Al Qaeda(this has been openly spoken about in the news for the past month or so) and Hezbollah. He openly praises Hezbollah as well.

If the US were to have direct talks with him, what would they say? He thinks we are "the great satan".

 

Do you guys really think if we weren't in Iraq everything would be fine? Do you really think Iraq is for nothing? You've stated that you think the Iraq war has made everything worse, but you're getting confused on which came first, the chicken or the egg. Things have been like this over there for how many decades? Now you're just hearing about it. We learned our lesson on isolationism with WW2. Again we tried it and again we were attacked on our own soil and dragged into it and again we're going to have to end it. Yet you want to stick your heads in the sand. 85% of the Iraqis that voted, voted for Democracy. Yet you lie and say they don't want it.

 

You need to get your facts straight and open your eyes. You're severely misguided because if you think we can go back to life pre-2001 you're crazy. The war on terror must be fought. Nobody knows what it will take to keep extremists from trying to cleanse the world of "US" but it must be fought.