How Do You Check To See Who Is

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 09:51

I don't think Bush is a child killer

It's not extreme, it's a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn't intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory

And this, where you affix the deaths of civilians to Bush as if that were an exceptional circumstance?

Would my point have been more effectively made if I had made some generic comment about past presidents' trespasses without mentioning a specific example not only of a president with the same type of "blood" on his hands, but one who none of you would be willing to call on the carpet for having done that which you deem so significant when Bush is the one in your docket?

It would seem, to use your formula, that two wrongs can make a right, depending on whose wrongs they are.

Rights from the "right" are worthy of no note whatsoever, due, apparently, to their providence.

Well, here are a few more:

Clinton had a LARGE part in making the bed Bush finds himself in, though you'd never know it from listening to people who cannot face facts.

True, Bush is president.

Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn't because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:14
.

probably for the same reasons anyone else dislikes Bush. [/QUOTE]
Maybe this doesn't qualify as anti-Bush in your book?

It appeared before Rip's post, or mine, for that matter. [/quote]
No this isn't anti bush.. the question was why would a 17 year old hate bush and the answer is probably for the same reasons as anyone else that hates him...it gives no reason as to why anyone should hate him. It was a direct answer to a direct question. To see this as an anti Bush statement is just paranoid
Perhaps just for your benefit i should have said "for the same reasons anyone else hates bush or if it was a 17 year old hating Clinton it would probably be for the same reasons any other person hates Clinton"

QUOTE (vidcc @ 11 July 2004 - 09:51)
QUOTE 
I don't think Bush is a child killer



It's not extreme, it's a sad fact of war and would be used in any inquiry.
Are you denying that innocent deaths have occured? of course not. But one has to look at it from both sides to see the point clearly.
Even when one disagrees with a theory one has to be able to understand how the theory could be reached to be able to understand another persons opinion.
lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country.

Fact: innocent civilians have been killed

Fact: it wasn't intentional

Fact: someone gave the order to go to war



So who has innocent deaths on their conscience?


It goes with the territory


And this, where you affix the deaths of civilians to Bush as if that were an exceptional circumstance?

Note the line where i (and i am repeating this) said "lets take bush out of the equasion and use any other waring country." .
I did this so it wasn't anti Bush. and because i used "any other waring country how could i be suggesting "exceptional circumstance" ?

the original lead up to this was answering why anyone could think of Bush as killer. And i gave a theory. Then removed Bush from the question.
It has to be looked at in this manner otherwise we wouldn't be able to charge dictators with genocide or any other war crime because "they didn't actually pull the trigger" And in this statement i say that any waring factor, which means that i do apply the same logic to Clinton and therefore you had the answer before you asked the question.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:41
Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn't because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...

care to elaborate as to exactly what you are talking about? otherwise how could anyone possibly debate it?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+11 July 2004 - 17:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 11 July 2004 - 17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@11 July 2004 - 13:41
Also true: Clinton was president, for eight years, and much of the situation we are now in isn&#39;t because of anything Monica blew.

Prove me wrong...

care to elaborate as to exactly what you are talking about? otherwise how could anyone possibly debate it?[/b][/quote]
Okay.

How does this sound?

I&#39;ll recount a story wherein Bill Clinton is sexually accosted in the Oval Office by a nymphomaniacal intern whose dress is stained during the encounter, which dress is key evidence in the Grand-Jury proceedings and impeachment that follow.

Next, I ask you to remove Bill Clinton from the story (easy, huh?) and ask you how you&#39;d feel if another President (hint, hint) bore the same role in this farce, and then ask your opinion of the story&#39;s merits?

Pretty slick.

Here&#39;s a hint for you:

If you truly wish to "...take Bush out of the equation", you accomplish same by not leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit.

[vidcc]

lets put bush into this and say that it was he that got the blowjob...AS YOU HINTED

my thoughts.... so what.

so what about the dui offences.. i never raise them. why? because they have no bearing on his political policies.

who believes the pretzel story?...unless it was soaked in jack daniels... bush admitted he used to drink too much but apart from a few jokes it makes no difference. I don&#39;t care. (this from a tee totaller)

Did he go AWOL in the national guard or not?...i don&#39;t care....again....BECAUSE IT MAKES NO IMPACT ON HIS POLICIES

I repeat yet again.

I CARE NOT WHAT ANY POLITICIAN GETS UPTO IN HIS/HER PRIVATE LIFE...THIS INCLUDES BUSH Jnr....I DO CARE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.


i even stated that my thinking means Clinton does have blood on his hands.(did you miss that?)

just how did clinton put bush in whatever bed you are talking about? i need specifics to be able to debate

and the

"leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit."

is all in your head...i assure you.

Don&#39;t go thinking that you know my mind better than i do

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 19:56
lets put bush into this and say that it was he that got the blowjob...AS YOU HINTED

my thoughts.... so what.

so what about the dui offences.. i never raise them. why? because they have no bearing on his political policies.

who believes the pretzel story?...unless it was soaked in jack daniels... bush admitted he used to drink too much but apart from a few jokes it makes no difference. I don&#39;t care. (this from a tee totaller)

Did he go AWOL in the national guard or not?...i don&#39;t care....again....BECAUSE IT MAKES NO IMPACT ON HIS POLICIES

I repeat yet again.

I CARE NOT WHAT ANY POLITICIAN GETS UPTO IN HIS/HER PRIVATE LIFE...THIS INCLUDES BUSH Jnr....I DO CARE ABOUT THEIR POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.


i even stated that my thinking means Clinton does have blood on his hands.(did you miss that?)

just how did clinton put bush in whatever bed you are talking about? i need specifics to be able to debate

and the

"leaving behind a subtle suggestion of that which you are asking others to omit."

is all in your head...i assure you.

Don&#39;t go thinking that you know my mind better than i do

I thought Rip started this tread, and I thought I was responding to him when I asked about his statement that Bush "killed the children".

Then someone takes exception on Rip&#39;s behalf, apparently trying to reveal or interpret what he meant, and here we are.

Is this typical of "TheTalkClub"?

[BigBank_Hank]

This has to be some sort of world record for the Talk Club.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@11 July 2004 - 19:23
I thought Rip started this tread, and I thought I was responding to him when I asked about his statement that Bush "killed the children".

Then someone takes exception on Rip&#39;s behalf, apparently trying to reveal or interpret what he meant, and here we are.

Is this typical of "TheTalkClub"?

i didn&#39;t take exception, i joined in the debate and my original response was at both. (sorry if you feel i have been cheating on you j2 and "debating" with others

It was a meaty statement and couldn&#39;t be overlooked.

This is the talk club which is irrelevent to what i am about to say because all "public" posts are open to all members... if they are not for the eyes of others to debate then they should be in PM.


I won&#39;t be around for a few days so could everyone stop posting so i don&#39;t have to miss threads like i did when i was away a couple of weeks ago

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@11 July 2004 - 22:26
(sorry if you feel i have been cheating on you j2 and "debating" with others

It was a meaty statement and couldn&#39;t be overlooked.

I am never jealous, vid-my plate is always full; my cup runneth over.

Of which "meaty statement" do you speak?

[Rip The Jacker]

Damn this thread hit 5 pages already.

@j2k4
Sorry for not replying to your PM yet.

If you guys are still talking about my comments earlier, yeah forget them, just ignore me.