Requirements for Democratic Presidential Candidate

[ABCs]

Clinton had one domestic terror case, one attack on the WTC and the rest were on foreign based US outposts....

Let's not forget the mysterious missile strike on a Chinese Embassy where Clinton apologized for the "mistake". Hmm, out of the MILLIONS of buildings around there, it jsut so happens that US missiles hit a Chinese embassy? Interesting. That report got wiped from the media before people even knew the details.

 

[Decker]

So tell me, oh wise one, where are the terror attacks against US interests abroad since Bush went ape shit on the Middle East? Sure our troops get attacked in Iraq, but where are the embassy bombings? Where are the attacks against US force elsewhere? Where are the attacks on US soil?

Here is what wisdom looks like DOMS. You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Since Bush attacked an arbitrary country and no terrorist attack against the US has happened since that illegal invasion, then that illegal attack must have stopped all terrorist attacks against the US.

Why is that fallacious? First, the US is being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis in Iraq. Second, You offer zero factual support for your conclusion so that it follows from the assumptions. You offer only your unsupported conclusion as revealed gospel.

Why?

B/c you are following a national script of propaganda:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/bill_clinton_bin_laden_and_hys.html

http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6389

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/354

And on and on. You see DOMS, although you are quite bright, it is unlikely in my estimation that you would use the word "emboldened." So I did a simple search of the following terminology "emboldened", "Clinton", and "terrorists" and up popped a catalog of this right wing chestnut: "how Clinton emboldened the terrorists..."

Unsubstantiated propaganda ringing throughout the echochamber does not impress me.

Care to try and back that up with figures? You won't, because you can't. Those numbers don't exist.

That's too easy. Every single year the gov. releases a report on terrorist attacks/activities worldwide. Every year since Bush's illegal invasion, that number has grown exponentially.
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf

Look at the 5000% increase in terrorist attacks since Bush's invasion

Look at the 2000% increase in terrorist caused deaths.

Shit, just look at the first page of the report. You are stunningly misinformed on this matter.

Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, Saddam supported terrorist organizations. They were two peas in the terrorist pod. There is no iron-clad proof that they did, or did not, work together, but they both were part of the terrorist world.

By your logic, so is practically every other country in the world including the US. The US trained the "freedom fighters" or "contras" or as I called them, "deathsquads" of Nicaragua. We also mined their harbors during peace time B/c of that, the World Court has the US #1 on the docket for war crimes. That's why Hussein was not tried in the world court b/c the US won't recognize its jurisdiction.

Categorizing things is smart. Selectively applying the criterion of your category is not.

Nice facts you have there. Not that any of that stopped all the attacks that followed. Certainly not 9/11. They were all substantially ineffective.

You keep trying to say that Clinton did something of value to stop terrorist attack, yet they continued to happen! They culminated in 9/11! You can bullet list all you want, you can talk about the paltry money that Clinton spent, but none of it means jack shit. The attacks kept happening and resulted in 9/11. That is a fact that trumps your shitty little list or anything else that you have to say.

[/quote]Restating your propaganda doesn't make it true.

Look at how terrorism has literally exploded like dynamite over the planet and tell me again about presidential incompetence lighting that fuse.

 

[DOMS]

Here is what wisdom looks like DOMS. You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Since Bush attacked an arbitrary country and no terrorist attack against the US has happened since that illegal invasion, then that illegal attack must have stopped all terrorist attacks against the US.

No, the logic failing is your own. Since the US has shown would happen to anyone that we felt was a threat (for any reason), the number of attack in the US has dropped to almost nil.

First, the US is being attacked by terrorists on a daily basis in Iraq. Second,

That's called a war, genius. You (like so many non-thinking liberals) also don't know what the terrorism means. Go look it up.

You offer zero factual support for your conclusion so that it follows from the assumptions.

The facts are simple, look at the number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 and the number of terrorist attacks for the same period before 9/11. Yeah, that doesn't present the opportunity to spin bullshit numbers like you liberals are fond of, but it gets to the point quite well.

And on and on. You see DOMS, although you are quite bright, it is unlikely in my estimation that you would use the word "emboldened." So I did a simple search of the following terminology "emboldened", "Clinton", and "terrorists" and up popped a catalog of this right wing chestnut: "how Clinton emboldened the terrorists..."

And, like many a liberal, you're wrong and full of shit. Free thinkers, such as myself, tend to have more words in their vocabulary than the average mantally regurgitative liberal.

That's too easy. Every single year the gov. releases a report on terrorist attacks/activities worldwide. Every year since Bush's illegal invasion, that number has grown exponentially.
http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060428112209-29811.pdf

Look at the 5000% increase in terrorist attacks since Bush's invasion

Look at the 2000% increase in terrorist caused deaths.

I don't give a rats ass about terrorist attacks against anyone other than the US, which has dropped quite nicely since the US went on the offensive.

Restating your propaganda doesn't make it true.

Look at how terrorism has literally exploded like dynamite over the planet and tell me again about presidential incompetence lighting that fuse.

You're so full of shit that you're eyes are brown. You talk about how Clinton did this or that bullshit token gesture like it was worth anything, but 9/11 still happened. Yeah, he did such a great job...

 

[Pianomahnn]

Fucking wankers. Quit calling each other names like little boys on the playground and debate the facts.

Fact 1: Nothing ANYONE in the United States does will stop the crazy motherfuckers over there from blowing shit up.

Fact 2: This thread really blows.

 

[DOMS]

Fucking wankers. Quit calling each other names like little boys on the playground and debate the facts.

You're assuming about why I use profanity. I know Decker outside of IM. Do you think I'm serious when I call him names? Or perhaps, just perhaps, were having a bit of fun?

Oh, and saying "Fucking wankers. Quit calling each other names like little boys on the playground" makes you a hypocritical piece of shit.

 

[tucker01]

Shut the fuck up and go wash your Vagina, you sound like you have some sand stuck up there

 

[Decker]

No, the logic failing is your own. Since the US has shown would happen to anyone that we felt was a threat (for any reason), the number of attack in the US has dropped to almost nil.

That's not foreign policy, that's nihilism.

That's called a war, genius. You (like so many non-thinking liberals) also don't know what the terrorism means. Go look it up.

Now you're just being petty.

The facts are simple, look at the number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 and the number of terrorist attacks for the same period before 9/11. Yeah, that doesn't present the opportunity to spin bullshit numbers like you liberals are fond of, but it gets to the point quite well.

Number of terrorist attacks and murders is spinning? How would you spin the numbers?

All right. Endgame.

2001.Technically the perpetrators (as planners) of 9/11 escaped the grasp of the US gov.

Bush failed.

2001. The anthrax terrorists using US high grade anthrax to attack US congressmen were never identified or caught.

Bush failed.

2002. Bomb explodes outside of US embassy in Pakistan killing 12. Perpetrators at large.

Bush failed.

2003. Suicided bomber kills 34 including 8 americans in bombing of housing compounds for Westerners in Saudi Arabia.

Bush failed.

2004. Terrorists attack the foreign worker division of a Saudi oil company. An american is killed. Saudi Arabia.

Bush failed.

2004. Saudi Arabia. Terrorists capture and kill 3 american journalists. No one's arrested.

Bush failed.

2004. Terrorists storm the US consulate in Saudi Arabia killing 5.

Bush failed.

2005. Amman, Jordan, Suicide bombers hit 3 american hotels killing 57.

Bush failed.

2006. Syria. 4 gunmen attack the US embassy.

Bush failed.

2007. Greece. US embassy fired on with anti-tank weapon.

Bush failed.

2003-present: Iraqi Invasion where over 100,000 innocents are murdered and over 3000 US soldiers are no more.

Bush failed.


DOMS you picked out Clinton's 3 or so failings of combating terrorist attacks--most of which occurred on foreign soil.

Above is a like list of Bush's failures.

I don't give a rats ass about terrorist attacks against anyone other than the US, which has dropped quite nicely since the US went on the offensive.

I'm sorry but isn't one of your theses: Clinton's lack of military retribution against terrorist attacks emboldened terrorists?

If I offered up this point of yours in an organized debate, I'd be laughed out of the building. But then again, it has to be devastating to you to have to defend the indefensible, namely Bush's/the republican's failures on, well, everything. So you do what a man cornered by his own frustrations would do, you lash out at your greates enemy (Clinton) to hit that bottom of the 9th home run to just show, goshdarnit, that you really were right all along and that the fault lies elsewhere.




Please list all the terrorist attacks on US soil under both Clinton and Bush's administration and show which was more successful in getting the terrorists.



PLEASE DO THE ABOVE.


Here's a start:

McVeigh was arrested for bombing the Murrah building.

On 26 February 1993, a car loaded with 1,200 pounds of explosives blew up in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring about a thousand others. The blast did not, as its planners intended, bring down the towers ??? that was finally accomplished by flying two hijacked airliners into the twin towers on the morning of 11 September 2001.
Four followers of the Egyptian cleric Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman were captured, convicted of the World Trade Center bombing in March 1994, and sentenced to 240 years in prison each. The purported mastermind of the plot, Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, was captured in 1995, convicted of the bombing in November 1997, and also sentenced to 240 years in prison. One additional suspect fled the U.S. and is believed to be living in Baghdad.
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/clinton.htm

Could Clinton have done a better job? Yes. Is your criticism of his efforts fairminded? Not even close.

Lastly, can the attacks of 9/11 be dropped at the feet of one man?

 

[Decker]

....

Oh, and saying "Fucking wankers. ....

I have been known to touch myself in my secret area....inappropriately.

But that's my business.

 

[DOMS]

That's not foreign policy, that's nihilism.

In the real world that we live in, that is foreign policy.

Now you're just being petty.

No I'm not. Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.

2001.Technically the perpetrators (as planners) of 9/11 escaped the grasp of the US gov.

Bush failed.

Wrong, this is Clinton's doing. I let you side track me from my point, but now I'm back on target. I know Bush is an asshat, but that's not what this discussion is about. This is about Bill Clinton. He took funding from China, he allowed 9/11 to happen, he fucked up the economy that culminated in the fiscal burst of 2000. It's about Slick Willie being a scum bag president yet so many liberals would like to suck his cock.

What a bunch of fucking morons.

Lastly, can the attacks of 9/11 be dropped at the feet of one man?

Yes, it can. He set the policy for eight years that made 9/11 a reality. The problem with the Arabs didn't start with him, but he should did his best to make us a target.

 

[goob]

Oh, and saying "Fucking wankers. Quit calling each other names like little boys on the playground" makes you a hypocritical piece of shit.

I think it's time for that William Lloyd Garrison signature again........

 

[DOMS]

I think it's time for that William Lloyd Garrison signature again........

Hey, I'm always me.

 

[Decker]

In the real world that we live in, that is foreign policy.



No I'm not. Guerrilla warfare is not terrorism.





Wrong, this is Clinton's doing. I let you side track me from my point, but now I'm back on target. I know Bush is an asshat, but that's not what this discussion is about. This is about Bill Clinton. He took funding from China, he allowed 9/11 to happen, he fucked up the economy that culminated in the fiscal burst of 2000. It's about Slick Willie being a scum bag president yet so many liberals would like to suck his cock.

What a bunch of fucking morons.


Yes, it can. He set the policy for eight years that made 9/11 a reality. The problem with the Arabs didn't start with him, but he should did his best to make us a target.

Ha ha hahahaaaaaaaaaa. Back on track with general misinformation, baseless allegations and ad hominem attacks.

Yep, you're firing on all cylinders. It's like watching a fucking fireworks display of errors, misunderstandings and flat out bullshit.

Clinton took funding from China. That's a scream. Is that how he got the money to hire the 9/11 terrorists?

True, Clinton was on vacation alot and he totally ignored the brief, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike inside US", he did fire Dick Clarke--the US gov.'s pre-eminent expert on terrorism, he totally blew off the prior administration's warnings that terrorism should be at the top of your 'to do' list, he also blew off the warnings of Dick Clarke and George Tenet and he canceled the daily meetings where they'd discuss battling terrorism.

Oh wait. That was Bush, not Clinton.

Anyways, unless you're a mind-reader reading the minds of the terrorists, and god how you've tried to show you are, you cannot possibly know if terrorists anywhere in the world were emboldened by Clinton's handling of terrorist activities.

Well, my work is done here.

 

[DOMS]

Clinton took funding from China.

Yes, he did (that just one random link). But that doesn't fit into the fantasy world that liberals live in, so it isn't real.

Oh wait. That was Bush, not Clinton.

You're the typical one-note fucking piano that I like to call a liberal.

Bill Clinton was a shitty president, but he had a good bed side manner. That would explain why so many liberals like you want smoke his pole.

Oh, and do you really think that he did a good job with the economy?

And his anti-terrorist efforts really paid off.

 

[Pianomahnn]

I think you place too much stock in the ability of the President to influence the economy. Yes, they have some. But to blame the horrific practices of investors (crazy out of control stock market) and C-suite persons (fraud, cooked books, etc.) on the President is foolish.

 

[DOMS]

I think you place too much stock in the ability of the President to influence the economy. Yes, they have some. But to blame the horrific practices of investors (crazy out of control stock market) and C-suite persons (fraud, cooked books, etc.) on the President is foolish.

The President sets the fiscal policy that trickles down through the government; which includes the Fed. Plus, Clinton had 8 years to set such policy.

Not to mention that so many liberal morons were trying to blame Bush for the bubble that burst in early 2000.

 

[Pianomahnn]

The President sets the fiscal policy that trickles down through the government; which includes the Fed. Plus, Clinton had 8 years to set such policy.

Not to mention that so many liberal morons were trying to blame Bush for the bubble that burst in early 2000.

Oh come on, now what substance does that last part really have on this? Because they did it I have to do it back? Bitch, please. (im really looking for a "talk to the hand" emoticon here, can't find it, damnit)

I understand the President sets policies. But he doesn't have control/knowledge over the unknown practices of corporate executives, and can't limit investors from pouring money into inflatedeconomyintarnet.com stocks.

edit: unknown practices being things like Enron and Worldcom. Those things caused a lot of trouble, and simply cannot be blamed on the President.

 

[DOMS]

Oh come on, now what substance does that last part really have on this? Because they did it I have to do it back? Bitch, please. (im really looking for a "talk to the hand" emoticon here, can't find it, damnit)

I understand the President sets policies. But he doesn't have control/knowledge over the unknown practices of corporate executives, and can't limit investors from pouring money into inflatedeconomyintarnet.com stocks.

The president sets the fiscal policy and the Fed makes it so. BTW, do you even know what I'm referring to when I say "the Fed"?

edit: unknown practices being things like Enron and Worldcom. Those things caused a lot of trouble, and simply cannot be blamed on the President.

Which is funny, because a lot of liberal blamed those on Bush.

 

[Pianomahnn]

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet.

The president sets the fiscal policy and the Fed makes it so. BTW, do you even know what I'm referring to when I say "the Fed"?

I'm going to assume you're referring to the Federal Reserve, that little central banking system, formerly chaired by the wonderful Alan Greenspan.

Which is funny, because a lot of liberal blamed those on Bush.

This is a fact: 99% of everyone are morons and have no understanding of what they speak.

 

[DOMS]

I'm going to assume you're referring to the Federal Reserve, that little central banking system, formerly chaired by the wonderful Alan Greenspan.

You were very, very close. But not quite...

This is a fact: 99% of everyone are morons and have no understanding of what they speak.

This is a sad truth. Most people simply regurgitate what they see on TV or read in a magazine and believe it a truth.

 

[Pianomahnn]

You were very, very close. But not quite...

Fool, read what I wrote again. Formerly chaired by Alan Greenspan. I figured most people (see below) wouldn't know Bernanke from their own ass. I did it for the common folk. Ha!!

This is a sad truth. Most people simply regurgitate what they see on TV or read in a magazine and believe it a truth.

Which is why I like to ask for sources of information. Most won't, and it's a shame. It's why I so adamantly argued in that immigration thread and found the bills being mentioned. But I can't entirely blame them. They've grown up trusting the media, that it would provide them an unbiased truth of world events. And that's just not the case anymore. So they're being bombarded by figures, numbers, phrases, comments that they can't take the time to verify.

Oh well. It's the only way I can rationalize ~55M people voting for Bush.

 

[Decker]

Yes, he did (that just one random link). But that doesn't fit into the fantasy world that liberals live in, so it isn't real.

I see you never tire of spreading propaganda.

9/11--Clinton's fault b/c he emboldened terrorists.

Why not, "B/c Bush, a soft minded incompetent dullard, was selected president in 2000, the terrorists finally saw their chance to attack america."

Chinagate. Clinton/Gore sold out to the Red Chinese. Don't you ever tire of being a mouthpiece? So the Republican Congress that impeached Clinton over lying about a blowjob from a dismissed harrassment case just let it slide that he was treasonous.

Do you even think things through? Or do you just start calling names to those disagreeing with you?

You're the typical one-note fucking piano that I like to call a liberal.

Bill Clinton was a shitty president, but he had a good bed side manner. That would explain why so many liberals like you want smoke his pole.

Oh, and do you really think that he did a good job with the economy?

And his anti-terrorist efforts really paid off.

Bill Clinton was the finest conservative president of the last 50 years bar none. He was also a womanizer, an adulterer, a war criminal and leader of the free world.

You argue like a child. "smoke his pole" Well, you're a poopypants fartface republican. How do like them apples.

Rubinomics worked wonders for our country in the '90s. Under Clinton, the deficit was erased and the debt was being paid down.

Can you name one other president in the last 40 years that could do that?

No you can't.

Or are the debt-riddled Reaga Bush administrations successes in your eyes?

Like I said, "The terrorists were waiting for an incompetent republican president before slating an attack on US soil. It stands to reason that they were emboldened by the rise of an utter imbecile to the highest office in our country. They saw Bush, taking his vacations and playing ranch hand, and damn it, they thought, "lets ride into history brothers.."

 

[DOMS]

Bush Bush

I think you're broken. You're broken in the same way that most liberals are broken. You can't talk about anything of substance without resorting to bashing Bush.

Yeah, I know his fiscal policy is anything but conservative, and yes, I know his policy in the Middle East is a joke; but I'm talking about Bill Clinton you broken record of a human being.

Good Lord, it's like talking to a political idiot savant.

Both 9/11 and the recession of 2000 happened because of the policies set out by Bill Clinton. The events that culminated in 2000 were the inaction (or poor decision making) of Clinton. But that doesn't involve Bush so you just turn in Rain Man.

The attacks against the US increased in both severity and frequency under Clinton's administration. The fiscal bubble that burst in 2000 was a result of Clinton's fiscal policy.

I'm sorry that these basic facts confuse you.

 

[Pianomahnn]

It really bothers me that so much blame and credit can be placed on the President of the United States.

Too much power...

 

[goandykid]

I think you're broken. You're broken in the same way that most liberals are broken. You can't talk about anything of substance without resorting to bashing Bush.

Yeah, I know his fiscal policy is anything but conservative, and yes, I know his policy in the Middle East is a joke; but I'm talking about Bill Clinton you broken record of a human being.

Good Lord, it's like talking to a political idiot savant.

Both 9/11 and the recession of 2000 happened because of the policies set out by Bill Clinton. The events that culminated in 2000 were the inaction (or poor decision making) of Clinton. But that doesn't involve Bush so you just turn in Rain Man.

The attacks against the US increased in both severity and frequency under Clinton's administration. The fiscal bubble that burst in 2000 was a result of Clinton's fiscal policy.

I'm sorry that these basic facts confuse you.

Bill was still a top 10 president, IMHO. Plus a pimp.

 

[DOMS]

Bill was still a top 10 president, IMHO. Plus a pimp.

I disagree with your first claim, but I do agree with the second. Bill had great style.

 

[BigDyl]

DOMS just has an agenda against Clinton.

 

[Decker]

I think you're broken. You're broken in the same way that most liberals are broken.

You???ve fallen into that trap again. Replace the word 'liberal' with 'Jew' and look at how your argumentation is nothing more than propaganda???you subvert logical analysis relying on dogmatic assertions/ad hominem attacks.

You can't talk about anything of substance without resorting to bashing Bush.

Bashing Bush? I???m bashing you in this argument. And I have yet to see you get up off the canvas.

Yeah, I know his fiscal policy is anything but conservative, and yes, I know his policy in the Middle East is a joke; but I'm talking about Bill Clinton you broken record of a human being.


Good Lord, it's like talking to a political idiot savant.

You miss my point entirely. I have plumbed to your depth of argumentation. My entire spiel about the terrorists waiting for the village idiot to take the mantle of president before striking is a speculative piece of garbage.

In other words, it???s just like the ???Clinton emboldened the terrorists??? speculative argument that you???ve adopted. It???s worthless.

Both 9/11 and the recession of 2000 happened because of the policies set out by Bill Clinton. The events that culminated in 2000 were the inaction (or poor decision making) of Clinton. But that doesn't involve Bush so you just turn in Rain Man.

The attacks against the US increased in both severity and frequency under Clinton's administration. The fiscal bubble that burst in 2000 was a result of Clinton's fiscal policy.

I'm sorry that these basic facts confuse you.

What facts?

Here are two statements:

• Clinton???s policy for battling terrorists emboldened the terrorists to attack the US on Bush???s watch.
• The recession of 2000 happened b/c of policies set out by Bill Clinton

Are those statements facts???i.e. true statements? We do not know because they are conclusions supported by zero evidence.

Where do you draw your Conclusions from? I cannot say. You, for sure, do not say.

You just make shit up and pass it off as truth/facts.

I have EMBOLDENED the facts in your conclusions for review.


When discussing Clinton???s performance re the economy, be sure to address the business cycle, the policy of the federal reserve, the debt passed on by the Reagan/Bush administrations, worldwide market developments and the effect of the introduction of the computer on a wide basis to both business/government etc., etc.

 

[BigDyl]

Bashing Bush? I???m bashing you in this argument. And I have yet to see you get up off the canvas.

I'm sorry, but this is OWNED!!!

 

[goandykid]

I disagree with your first claim, but I do agree with the second. Bill had great style.

Why? Lets even look back at the recent presidents. You can't say GWB or someone like Carter had more positive impact than Clinton. The original Bush did okay but was beaten for a reason.

Can you give me an unbiased top 10?

 

[DOMS]

You???ve fallen into that trap again. Replace the word 'liberal' with 'Jew' and look at how your argumentation is nothing more than propaganda???you subvert logical analysis relying on dogmatic assertions/ad hominem attacks.

The pathetic act of an argumentatively challenged loser. You simply trying to deflect the truth of it. You're a one note liberal. You simply can't separate any though from GWB.

Bashing Bush? I???m bashing you in this argument. And I have yet to see you get up off the canvas.

That's because you're swing facing the corner. I'm talking about Clinton (my point at the start) and all you can do it talk about GWB. They have medicine that can help you with that.

In other words, it???s just like the ???Clinton emboldened the terrorists??? speculative argument that you???ve adopted. It???s worthless.

I've moved past that. Try to keep up, man. You're falling behind again.

My point about Clinton and terrorism is the intensity and frequency of it increased. Oh, and it was pure coincidence that things built up to 9/11, I'm sure.

When discussing Clinton???s performance re the economy, be sure to address the business cycle, the policy of the federal reserve, the debt passed on by the Reagan/Bush administrations, worldwide market developments and the effect of the introduction of the computer on a wide basis to both business/government etc., etc.

You're riot. Pure and true entertainment. You think that Clinton's guiding of US fiscal policy (enacted by the Fed) had little do with the recession in 2000?