To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 21326
21325  |  21327
Subject: 
Re: Revisionists...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Wed, 18 Jun 2003 16:27:44 GMT
Viewed: 
344 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti wrote:
   In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
   Look the situation is over so you can drop the DNC sound bytes. It should be common knowledge that Clinton was persued and impeached for felonious perjury, not his sexual indiscressions.

That whole line of questioning was really impermissable and would not have happened at another time in history. You are talking about a man that lied about having an affair. Why? Because supposedly you can’t be president if you inhale or like oral. Hopefully, Shrub has broken the ban on former drug addicts. I’m still hoping for a president that has done LSD or mushrooms and can actually see beyond the length of his nose and his own greed. Drug use is no guarantee, but it can’t have hurt.

Americans are obsessed about sex because they don’t get any. Don’t you know that Provo Utah has the highest per capita porn consumption of the whole U.S.

Get laid. Take it easy. Follow the example of the our annoying ex-president, please!

When I talk about impeachment I talk about lying to a grand jury in front of a federal judge; I talk about if it should be alright for a sitting president to commit a felony and not be prosecuted; I talk about obvious obstruction of justice. You continually talk about sex, and drugs too. So let me return the advice to you, sober up and turn off the porn (see we can both make gross assumptions)

  
   Are you advocating that we should have just sat on our hands and waited until we were in fact attacked?

An attack was in no way imminent, I think the facts already bear that out. That’s why there is such a fuss about it internationally more generally and in England very specifically. Heads will and should roll.

This sort of reminds me of the movie Minority Report, if you stop a murder before it happens can you be sure that the murder would have actually happened. If we had pre-emptively attacked the Taliban, who we knew were evil before 9/11 you and the other full time critics would have been in a simmilar tizzy. Unfortunately we can not accurately predict the future, perhaps you are right, perhaps Sadam was not a direct threat to us, but then again perhaps you are wrong, we can sit here and second guess the news reports we read or watch, but ultimately we may never know.

A while back I called the highway patrol and reported a guy I saw drinking a budwiser while driving on the freeway, would he have become inebriated and caused an accident? I don’t know, and will never know; I could have simply avoided him myself, but someone else could have been at risk, either way I was not willing to take that risk.

  
   I definately agree that the buck stops with Bush, and it should. However I cannot see how his actions were a rush, the intelligence that Bush used has been around for a while.

Dude, the Powell presentation before the U.N. was pure crappola.

Economic embargo could have continued to containt he problem ad infinitum as far as I can see. Unless we find (read: plant) evidence of WMD, that’s all she wrote.

Alright, if Powell’s presentation was “crappola” and Iraq had no WMD’s then why did we need an embargo? Why did we need to contain Sadam? If he was abiding by the 1991 disarmament treaty and doing nothing other than killing his own people, what is the need for any punitive action. Make him a full member of the UN and put him on the human rights council.

Scott C.



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Revisionists...
 
(...) That whole line of questioning was really impermissable and would not have happened at another time in history. You are talking about a man that lied about having an affair. Why? Because supposedly you can't be president if you inhale or like (...) (21 years ago, 18-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

8 Messages in This Thread:



Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR