Re-Evaluating Newt..

[JoeB131]

SAT strikes me as someone who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

Well, no. I'm interested in facts, I've posted facts and the links to back them up.

You attempt to rebut them by imagining conversations and motives that suit your bias. In almost every post, you put words into people's mouths, and have them act out scenes based on your suspicions and dislikes. That is not anything resembling a debate. That's you in a fight with reality.

I put the words they probably said... because they are the only ones that make sense.

Grow a fuckin' sense of humor, for crying out loud.

When you have to make heroes out of under-acheiving affirmative action hires, you know you are really kind of weak in the hero department.

 

[Cecilie1200]

SAT strikes me as someone who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

Well, no. I'm interested in facts, I've posted facts and the links to back them up.

You attempt to rebut them by imagining conversations and motives that suit your bias. In almost every post, you put words into people's mouths, and have them act out scenes based on your suspicions and dislikes. That is not anything resembling a debate. That's you in a fight with reality.

Quoting Cecille:

I note that 1) you're citing PBS, which is not an improvement in the "biased, leftist garbage" category, and 2) you're still quoting his ex-wife. Tell me, if you had ever actually known the touch of a woman long enough to have a relationship with one and then break up, how positive and unbiased a source of info do you think she'd be?

[Now, I realize that your illiteracy is such that you think that following a direct quote from Newt with exposition somehow constitutes Newt himself saying the exposition, but that's not actually how the English language works. HE said it was a bad period in his life. PBS said that Jackie had cancer and that he asked for a divorce while she had it. Unfortunately for you, both of his daughters remember the time quite clearly and say - very politely and circumspectly, because she IS their mother - that their mother is full of shit. Who's more likely to be biased? His bitter ex-wife, or the children who love BOTH parents?

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than hauling out misquote after misquote from leftist hacks and stubbornly insisting that everyone view them as gospel the way you do, just get some lazy leftist journalist up off his dead ass to go investigate. Divorce filings are usually matters of public record, and I've certainly never heard that Gingrich's first divorce is sealed. Go look and see who the plaintiff was, and when the papers were filed. And here's a thought: REAL journalists would demand that Jackie PROVE she had cancer and was on the verge of death, rather than just taking her word for it. If she wants to attack a Presidential candidate, seems fair to me that she be asked to produce the medical records to back her story up.

Or would that be too factual for your tiny mind to handle?

First, calm down, and read what I'm actually saying.

Newt spoke in speeches about his wife's cancer. Both she and Newt say that she had cancer. This is not something you need to debate, because it's been established that she had cancer. She had surgery for uterine cancer, and then later went in to have a tumor removed. The tumor removed in the second surgery was benign. That doesn't make her not have cancer earlier. She still had uterine cancer.

I'm not sure where the "verge of death" comment comes from, but it isn't from me. Perhaps your let your imagination, or your anger, get the best of you.

Newt's wife said the divorce came as a surprise. Newt said that it didn't. We have both of them on the record making these statements. They do not agree. There's no point in you and I trying to figure out which of them is right, because they are the two people in the discussion, and they are not in agreement.

Newt has admitted that he cheated on both of his wives. This is not up for debate. He admits it.

Newt's second wife says that he dumped her a few months after she was diagnosed with MS.

PBS is a reputable source. The other sources are reputable as well.

You can't spend your life ignoring inconvenient facts and expect to get anywhere.

Take the car key out of your ear and listen to what I'M saying.

YOU say that he says these things. And then you cite ONLY quotes from him admitting to the one thing I've never argued. Furthermore, your sources for quotes are suspect, if not laughable. So this basically amounts to YOUR WORD FOR IT, which I absolutely DO need to argue. No, you do NOT get to state that something is so and tell me to just accept it and expect that to happen. I pay every bit as much attention to your half-assed declarations of reality as I do to your piece-of-shit sources.

PBS is a reputable source IN YOUR OPINION. That means nothing. Your other sources are as reputable as a conversation overheard in a high school girls' bathroom.

You can't spend your life declaring things to be facts with no substantiation and expect to get anything but laughed at. That's where we are now.

When you are ready to SHOW rather than TELL, come find me. Until then, you no longer deserve even the marginal respect of having me read your posts, let alone respond. Begone.

 

[SAT]

I put the words they probably said... because they are the only ones that make sense.

Grow a fuckin' sense of humor, for crying out loud.

When you have to make heroes out of under-acheiving affirmative action hires, you know you are really kind of weak in the hero department.

Yes, I know. The words that made sense to you. The dialogue from the movie in your head. Meanwhile, we've got a real world going on out here.

Take the car key out of your ear and listen to what I'M saying

YOU say that he says these things. And then you cite ONLY quotes from him admitting to the one thing I've never argued. Furthermore, your sources for quotes are suspect, if not laughable. So this basically amounts to YOUR WORD FOR IT, which I absolutely DO need to argue. No, you do NOT get to state that something is so and tell me to just accept it and expect that to happen. I pay every bit as much attention to your half-assed declarations of reality as I do to your piece-of-shit sources.

PBS is a reputable source IN YOUR OPINION. That means nothing. Your other sources are as reputable as a conversation overheard in a high school girls' bathroom.

You can't spend your life declaring things to be facts with no substantiation and expect to get anything but laughed at. That's where we are now.

When you are ready to SHOW rather than TELL, come find me. Until then, you no longer deserve even the marginal respect of having me read your posts, let alone respond. Begone.

I showed. You didn't like the truth. You threw a fit. But the facts remain.

Newt spoke in speeches about his wife's cancer. Both she and Newt say that she had cancer. This is not something you need to debate, because it's been established that she had cancer. She had surgery for uterine cancer, and then later went in to have a tumor removed. The tumor removed in the second surgery was benign. That doesn't make her not have cancer earlier. She still had uterine cancer.

I'm not sure where the "verge of death" comment comes from, but it isn't from me. Perhaps your let your imagination, or your anger, get the best of you.

Newt's wife said the divorce came as a surprise. Newt said that it didn't. We have both of them on the record making these statements. They do not agree. There's no point in you and I trying to figure out which of them is right, because they are the two people in the discussion, and they are not in agreement.

Newt has admitted that he cheated on both of his wives. This is not up for debate. He admits it.

Newt's second wife says that he dumped her a few months after she was diagnosed with MS.

PBS is a reputable source. The other sources are reputable as well.

You can't spend your life ignoring inconvenient facts and expect to get anywhere.

 

[Synthaholic]

Jackie Gingrich, Newt and his first wife's daughter, however have refuted the story of him "divorcing his wife when she was battling cancer". Jackie said--I'm thinking in a Larry King interview but can't remember for sure--that it was her mother who requested the divorce and the tumor was benign, not cancer. He did start dating Marriane before the divorce was final and was cheating on Marianne when he confessed that infidelity.

However those who condemn Newt's personal life, which was pretty scuzzy, don't seem to have a problem with President Clinton's affair with Gennifer Flowers, various other 'bimbo eruptions, and getting blow jobs in the Oval Office and don't seem to think that impaired his ability to preside.

So either there is a huge double standard at play here or Newt's infidelities don't matter either.

How about it?

Newtie's daughter has zero credibility - she is lying for daddy because she runs daddy's video production company, and knows that the dollars keep coming in from the suckers only as long as Newtie can keep conning them.

 

[Synthaholic]

Plame was a covert agent. This is a fact. Let's don't argue about a simple fact.

You mean except no one was charged with outing an agent and her name was in the public domain and half of Washington knew who she was.... I guess "covert" is one of those words that doesn't mean what it actually means. NEXT---

Completely false. Completely a Cheney-based lie, parroted by FOXNEWS.

 

[oreo]

In the primary my vote will go to Newt. That is who I think that can kick Obama's ass in a debate and an election

After reading his 21st contract with America--and I believe he has the best new tax plan of everyone else--I just hope the media gives him a chance to explain it--and that in the next debate he will be able to answer more questions.

I agree--I believe Newt Gingrich is the best candidate--and I think everyone knows it--but many just can't get past his personal marital problems that happened 20 years ago?

Beats me?

 

[Synthaholic]

The famous sixteen words were taken out of the SOTU address Bush gave because the intell to back it up was not there. The Bush administration put them back in.

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

 

[oreo]

The famous sixteen words were taken out of the SOTU address Bush gave because the intell to back it up was not there. The Bush administration put them back in.

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

Well then-what is your opinion on us getting involved in Libya?

 

[Synthaholic]

Perhaps you'd like to show me where Newt admitted to anything other than having an affair on his second wife. See if you can do it using REAL news sources, rather than blogs. Amazingly enough, just because someone says it on the Internet, that doesn't make it true.

Does he have a "One Free Affair" card?

I believe I have already stated that I think anyone who's focusing on personal shit that's between him and his ex-wife is a dumbfuck who deserves to have the nation crumble around him while he pretends the President is just another celebrity to paparazzi to death.

Of course, I think you're a dumbfuck no matter what happens, so feel free to carry on your inane drivel indefinitely.

You probably believe that anyone who makes you look foolish is a dumbfuck, so I'm OK with it.

 

[Synthaholic]

His first wife never had cancer, dipwad. She had a benign growth removed. And they had already agreed to divorce some time BEFORE she went in for her surgery.

And that's just for starters.

Maybe if you read something other than the Internet equivalent of Jerry Springer, you'd know something real.

Moron.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/newt/vanit...

"It was a very, very bad period of my life," Newt has admitted. "It had been getting steadily worse. I ultimately wound up at a point where suicide, or going insane, or divorce were the last three options." In April 1980, he told Jackie, who was suffering from uterine cancer, that he was filing for divorce.

He was soon having an affair with a woman known to a member of his staff as "the mystery lady."
...
For some time, Jackie tried to hold on. "He can say that we had been talking about it for 10 years, but the truth is that it came as a complete surprise," she told Lois Romano of The Washington Post. "He walked out in the spring of 1980...By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said, 'Daddy is downstairs. Could he come up?' When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from my surgery."

I note that 1) you're citing PBS, which is not an improvement in the "biased, leftist garbage" category, and 2) you're still quoting his ex-wife. Tell me, if you had ever actually known the touch of a woman long enough to have a relationship with one and then break up, how positive and unbiased a source of info do you think she'd be?

Now, I realize that your illiteracy is such that you think that following a direct quote from Newt with exposition somehow constitutes Newt himself saying the exposition, but that's not actually how the English language works. HE said it was a bad period in his life. PBS said that Jackie had cancer and that he asked for a divorce while she had it. Unfortunately for you, both of his daughters remember the time quite clearly and say - very politely and circumspectly, because she IS their mother - that their mother is full of shit. Who's more likely to be biased? His bitter ex-wife, or the children who love BOTH parents?

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than hauling out misquote after misquote from leftist hacks and stubbornly insisting that everyone view them as gospel the way you do, just get some lazy leftist journalist up off his dead ass to go investigate. Divorce filings are usually matters of public record, and I've certainly never heard that Gingrich's first divorce is sealed. Go look and see who the plaintiff was, and when the papers were filed. And here's a thought: REAL journalists would demand that Jackie PROVE she had cancer and was on the verge of death, rather than just taking her word for it. If she wants to attack a Presidential candidate, seems fair to me that she be asked to produce the medical records to back her story up.

Or would that be too factual for your tiny mind to handle?

If PBS is not factual in your alternate universe, then there is no use discussing anything with you, toots.

 

[Synthaholic]

SAT strikes me as someone who thinks he's entitled to his own facts.

Well, no. I'm interested in facts, I've posted facts and the links to back them up.

You attempt to rebut them by imagining conversations and motives that suit your bias. In almost every post, you put words into people's mouths, and have them act out scenes based on your suspicions and dislikes. That is not anything resembling a debate. That's you in a fight with reality.

Quoting Cecille:

I note that 1) you're citing PBS, which is not an improvement in the "biased, leftist garbage" category, and 2) you're still quoting his ex-wife. Tell me, if you had ever actually known the touch of a woman long enough to have a relationship with one and then break up, how positive and unbiased a source of info do you think she'd be?

[Now, I realize that your illiteracy is such that you think that following a direct quote from Newt with exposition somehow constitutes Newt himself saying the exposition, but that's not actually how the English language works. HE said it was a bad period in his life. PBS said that Jackie had cancer and that he asked for a divorce while she had it. Unfortunately for you, both of his daughters remember the time quite clearly and say - very politely and circumspectly, because she IS their mother - that their mother is full of shit. Who's more likely to be biased? His bitter ex-wife, or the children who love BOTH parents?

There's an easy solution to this. Rather than hauling out misquote after misquote from leftist hacks and stubbornly insisting that everyone view them as gospel the way you do, just get some lazy leftist journalist up off his dead ass to go investigate. Divorce filings are usually matters of public record, and I've certainly never heard that Gingrich's first divorce is sealed. Go look and see who the plaintiff was, and when the papers were filed. And here's a thought: REAL journalists would demand that Jackie PROVE she had cancer and was on the verge of death, rather than just taking her word for it. If she wants to attack a Presidential candidate, seems fair to me that she be asked to produce the medical records to back her story up.

Or would that be too factual for your tiny mind to handle?

First, calm down, and read what I'm actually saying.

Newt spoke in speeches about his wife's cancer. Both she and Newt say that she had cancer. This is not something you need to debate, because it's been established that she had cancer. She had surgery for uterine cancer, and then later went in to have a tumor removed. The tumor removed in the second surgery was benign. That doesn't make her not have cancer earlier. She still had uterine cancer.

I'm not sure where the "verge of death" comment comes from, but it isn't from me. Perhaps your let your imagination, or your anger, get the best of you.

Newt's wife said the divorce came as a surprise. Newt said that it didn't. We have both of them on the record making these statements. They do not agree. There's no point in you and I trying to figure out which of them is right, because they are the two people in the discussion, and they are not in agreement.

Newt has admitted that he cheated on both of his wives. This is not up for debate. He admits it.

Newt's second wife says that he dumped her a few months after she was diagnosed with MS.

PBS is a reputable source. The other sources are reputable as well.

You can't spend your life ignoring inconvenient facts and expect to get anywhere.

Take the car key out of your ear and listen to what I'M saying.

YOU say that he says these things. And then you cite ONLY quotes from him admitting to the one thing I've never argued. Furthermore, your sources for quotes are suspect, if not laughable. So this basically amounts to YOUR WORD FOR IT, which I absolutely DO need to argue. No, you do NOT get to state that something is so and tell me to just accept it and expect that to happen. I pay every bit as much attention to your half-assed declarations of reality as I do to your piece-of-shit sources.

PBS is a reputable source IN YOUR OPINION. That means nothing. Your other sources are as reputable as a conversation overheard in a high school girls' bathroom.

You can't spend your life declaring things to be facts with no substantiation and expect to get anything but laughed at. That's where we are now.

When you are ready to SHOW rather than TELL, come find me. Until then, you no longer deserve even the marginal respect of having me read your posts, let alone respond. Begone.

Who do you consider a reputable source? Give me five examples.

This should be entertaining.

 

[Synthaholic]

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

Well then-what is your opinion on us getting involved in Libya?

My opinion is that Bush spent $1 Trillion to get Saddam.

Obama spent $1 Billion to get Gaddafi.

Looks like Obama has plenty of CEO-type executive experience to me.

 

[JoeB131]

I put the words they probably said... because they are the only ones that make sense.

Grow a fuckin' sense of humor, for crying out loud.

When you have to make heroes out of under-acheiving affirmative action hires, you know you are really kind of weak in the hero department.

Yes, I know. The words that made sense to you. The dialogue from the movie in your head. Meanwhile, we've got a real world going on out here.

Everyone in the real world thought she was lying through her teeth...

 

[JoeB131]

The famous sixteen words were taken out of the SOTU address Bush gave because the intell to back it up was not there. The Bush administration put them back in.

The famous 16 words were correct. The British did have evidence the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium. MI-6 stood by that statement. So it was an accurate statement. they didn't get it, but they asked for it.

Look, guy, George Tenat went into Bush's office and said "It's a slam dunk, Mr. President!"

Joe Wilson wrote in the LA Times that no only did Saddam have WMD's, but we needed to give him a graceful way out because he'd use them.

This is a lot of people playing CYA when something goes wrong. If you had a real job, you see it happens every day in the business world, who ends up holding the bag of dog poop.

Wow, you have totally drank the kool-aid. Next, you're gonna tell us that Saddam was behind 9/11.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

Two points.

1) The Democrats looked at the same evidence,and came to the same conclusions.

2) So you are saying that it wasn't worth it if it went over a certain cost. Good thing you werne't around during WWII. "Wow, getting Hitler is too expensive. Better just let him kill those people."

 

[SAT]

My opinion is that Bush spent $1 Trillion to get Saddam.

Obama spent $1 Billion to get Gaddafi.

Looks like Obama has plenty of CEO-type executive experience to me.

Yeah, that.

Everyone in the real world thought she was lying through her teeth...

Well, no. The public was divided on that. And please show something factual to back up your claim that she was an affirmative action hire.

Myself. Saddam was a scumbag and I'm glad he's dead. Aren't you?

Not at the cost of over $1 Trillion and over 5,000 U.S. military deaths. HELL NO!!!!

Yeah, that too.

Two points.

1) The Democrats looked at the same evidence,and came to the same conclusions.

The Democrats in Congress weren't given the same evidence. They were given the evidence that the Bush administration wanted them to have.

Liberty Street: Congress Did NOT See the Same Intelligence Bush Did

The Congressional Research Service, by contrast, said: "The president, and a small number of presidentially designated Cabinet-level officials, including the vice president ... have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods."
[...]
The CRS report identified nine key U.S. intelligence "products" that aren't generally shared with Congress. These include the President's Daily Brief, a compilation of analyses that's given only to the president and a handful of top aides, and a daily digest on terrorism-related matters.

The Democrats were far too quick to sign on to war. The nation had questions, the public had questions, and the media and the Congress failed -including the Democrats, including Kerry and Hillary Clinton] to do their jobs. But no, the Congress did not look at the same intell.

2) So you are saying that it wasn't worth it if it went over a certain cost. Good thing you werne't around during WWII. "Wow, getting Hitler is too expensive. Better just let him kill those people."

Not a good comparison. Saddam tried to expand his territory, and was sent packing. At the time we declared war on him, he was contained within the borders of his country.

Hitler was in the process of trying to expand the areas under his control to most of Europe and to Russia. Hitler was engaged in genocide at the time of WWII, Saddam was not. An ally of Hitler's, Japan, had attacked our country.

I notice that once the "we thought Iraq had WMD" story gets dispatched, the other 20 or so justifications for Iraq get trotted out---as if WMD wasn't the rationale presented to the public and to the Congress.

 

[JoeB131]

Hitler was engaged in genocide at the time of WWII, Saddam was not.

So this is your argument. Saddam hadn't done any genocide "recently"? Really, you are going with that?

An ally of Hitler's, Japan, had attacked our country.

An Ally of Saddam, Al Qaeda, had attacked our country. Yup, they were allies. You know who said so? Bill Clinton.

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Additionally, the indictment states that Al Qaeda reached an agreement
with Iraq not to work against the regime of Saddam Hussein and that
they would work cooperatively with Iraq, particularly in weapons
development.

And please show something factual to back up your claim that she was an affirmative action hire.

You mean other than she was an underacheiving mediocrity? Seriously, other than stabbing her mentor in the back, what else is she known for?

The Democrats were far too quick to sign on to war. The nation had questions, the public had questions, and the media and the Congress failed -including the Democrats, including Kerry and Hillary Clinton] to do their jobs. But no, the Congress did not look at the same intell.

the Nation didn't have questions. When the war started, it was immensely popular. They had questions when it took longer than expected... but that happens with every war.

Even World War II.

The reality is, people were beating the war drums against Saddam long before Bush got there or 9/11 happened.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

 

[SAT]

So this is your argument. Saddam hadn't done any genocide "recently"? Really, you are going with that?

Absolutely. It had been years since Saddam attacked his own citizens. We cannot go around and fix every tyrant in the world. Do you know how many sons of bitches are running countries and abusing their citizens? We can't fix the world through military force. That is just reality.

An Ally of Saddam, Al Qaeda, had attacked our country. Yup, they were allies. You know who said so? Bill Clinton.

TEXT: US GRAND JURY INDICTMENT AGAINST USAMA BIN LADEN

Then old Bill was mistaken. There were no significant ties between the two.

You mean other than she was an underacheiving mediocrity? Seriously, other than stabbing her mentor in the back, what else is she known for?

I asked for your evidence, and you've just proven you don't have any.

the Nation didn't have questions. When the war started, it was immensely popular. They had questions when it took longer than expected... but that happens with every war.

Even World War II.

There were massive protests against the war in Iraq. There were many questions that the public asked that were unanswered. The public has a right to know the truth about a war, because it's the most expensive and dangerous enterprise that our democracy engages in.

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JoeB131]

[
Absolutely. It had been years since Saddam attacked his own citizens. We cannot go around and fix every tyrant in the world. Do you know how many sons of bitches are running countries and abusing their citizens? We can't fix the world through military force. That is just reality.

In short, you didn't like Bush took him out... let's get real here. You were probably cheering when Clinton was bombing him in Operation Wag the Dog 2.

Saddam wasn't every tyrannt. He was one who had attacked four of his neighbors, who sponsored terrorists, who plotted the assassination of a former US president. In short, the cockroach was just asking to be stomped, and we stomped him. Which is a great message to the other cockroaches.

Then old Bill was mistaken. There were no significant ties between the two.

Actually, this was bill trying to make Bin Laden seem scarier than he seemed. In 1998, people were really worried about Saddam, and Bin Laden was a guy who occassional planted a bomb outside an embassy.

My point, which you avoid, is that it was the common perception at the time that Saddam and Bin Laden were friends on BurkaBook. Now we know, maybe not so much.

You mean other than she was an underacheiving mediocrity? Seriously, other than stabbing her mentor in the back, what else is she known for?

I asked for your evidence, and you've just proven you don't have any.

She accomplished nothing else. Ever. Affirmative Action. Giving success to the useless without hard work since 1970.

Heck, we're in the "Affirmative Action" presidency, and look how well that's working out.

There were massive protests against the war in Iraq. There were many questions that the public asked that were unanswered. The public has a right to know the truth about a war, because it's the most expensive and dangerous enterprise that our democracy engages in.
]

A bunch of dirty-ass hippies who hate America don't count, man.

in an earlier day, such people would have been sent to spend the war in prison, which is what we did to their type in World War 1 and World War 2.

 

[SAT]

In short, you didn't like Bush took him out... let's get real here. You were probably cheering when Clinton was bombing him in Operation Wag the Dog 2.

In short, bullshit. You're just throwing shit out without any basis for that comment.

Saddam wasn't every tyrannt. He was one who had attacked four of his neighbors, who sponsored terrorists, who plotted the assassination of a former US president. In short, the cockroach was just asking to be stomped, and we stomped him. Which is a great message to the other cockroaches.

Yes, he was. Tyrants do that shit. He was contained. He was not worth the cost to America.

Actually, this was bill trying to make Bin Laden seem scarier than he seemed. In 1998, people were really worried about Saddam, and Bin Laden was a guy who occassional planted a bomb outside an embassy.

My point, which you avoid, is that it was the common perception at the time that Saddam and Bin Laden were friends on BurkaBook. Now we know, maybe not so much.

Yes, it was a common false perception, furthered by the Bush administration. So your point is....:?

She accomplished nothing else. Ever. Affirmative Action. Giving success to the useless without hard work since 1970.

Heck, we're in the "Affirmative Action" presidency, and look how well that's working out.

I believe we're into "they're black people, so it must have been affirmative action" territory.

A bunch of dirty-ass hippies who hate America don't count, man.

in an earlier day, such people would have been sent to spend the war in prison, which is what we did to their type in World War 1 and World War 2.

You're completely mistaken, Archie. From start to finish on that one. You mislabel your ideological opponents, and want to attack their 1st Amendment rights, showing yourself to be yet another totalitarian.

Again, there were massive protests. Some of the biggest protest rallies ever. And you know what? Those people were right. The war was a mistake.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

By far the best debater and most informed candidate and could easily kick Obama's ass in a debate...

Turned Clinton from a deficit spending President in a fortunate economy to a budget surplus and Democrat pro-sexual harassment hero..

Soo.. what's your beef with this Guy...?

Yeah.....he's a real.....

....CLASS ACT!!!!

Thank God, we had him around, when questioning Bill Clinton's character was Priority 1, for "conservatives"!!!!​

September 11, 1995​

"House Speaker Newt Gingrich yesterday blasted the author of an article that accuses him of cheating on his ex-wife as a "vicious liberal" bent on damaging his career.

He called Gail Sheehy's article in this month's Vanity Fair "trash journalism . . . a despicable hit piece by a person who has virtually no values."

When Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" pointed out that Republicans "were not reluctant about talking about President Clinton's character," Gingrich said "absolutely" and lit into Clinton's record."

The Pig SPEAKS!!

May 16, 2011​

"In a withering but in some respects prescient profile on Gingrich in 1984, a person who was once among his closest friends and advisers (before they had a falling out) said, “The important thing you have to understand about Newt Gingrich is that he is amoral. There isn’t any right or wrong, there isn’t any conservative or liberal. There’s only what will work best for Newt Gingrich.”

Consistency; Gingrich-Style​

What else ya' need-to-know, Lump?

​