 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Evidently... 
I was tempted to go ahead and post the entire transcript of the interview... that dealt only with this terrorism issue... but decided I would receive a reprimand from Nobby for a post that was entirely too long.
But hey... three complete sentences... and there is Richard's name... you can go ahead and dwell on this part of what I posted all day long FFT... it only demonstrates your inability to address the real issue... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | I really don't understand all of the attacks on Clinton; ever since he left office, he's been doing REALLY good work. He started the 'Clinton Global Initiative' which is fighting global warming, disease, hunger, and also has goals to help heal racial and religious differences.
He has a huge number of right-wing Republicans helping him, including George H.W. Bush as well as Rupert Murdoch. |
He is the one who went ape on Fox. He is the one who continues to lie about the facts involved about what he did as President. He is the one who decided to start blaming the messenger while being interviewed. He was/is a sorry excuse for a President. He did more to harm the office than Bush could ever imagine doing.
Ever since he took office, there has been this expectation of deceit and deception from our politicians... granted... it existed prior to that - no doubt... but when he took office, he took it to a whole new level. I personally can not stand to even listen to the guy as virtually everything coming out of his yammer is nothing more than a lie, a distortion of the truth... or it is all about him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Trinity, your viewpoint is incredibly one-sided. It's like you get all of your information from Fox News. What you're saying isn't objective at all!
| Trinity1 wrote: |
He is the one who went ape on Fox. He is the one who continues to lie about the facts involved about what he did as President. He is the one who decided to start blaming the messenger while being interviewed.
|
Thank you for at least not referring to the interviewer as a journalist... Of course Clinton got angry! He was there to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative, and then the scum-bag Fox News interviewer attacked him!
| Trinity1 wrote: |
He was/is a sorry excuse for a President. He did more to harm the office than Bush could ever imagine doing.
|
Trinity, this is perhaps the wrongest thing you've ever said. Serious historians are already talking about how Bush is going to go down in history as one of America's worst presidents ever. He hates the environment, is doing his best to flood the Earth, eroded civil rights, has endorsed torture as well as domestic spying, and has abused the office more than Clinton ever did. The precedents set by Bush are truly egregious.
I know that you can't see this because the news that you get is filtered so that you don't get any exposure to both sides of the issue, but I'm on the outside of your country looking in. In that sense I am lucky; I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm telling you that anyone with a proper balanced and objective perspective can tell that
a) All politicians are scum, and Clinton is no different (although his Global Initiative is definitely a good form of penance).
and b) The Bush Administration has hurt America more seriously than any other president in the history of the country.
| Trinity1 wrote: |
Ever since he took office, there has been this expectation of deceit and deception from our politicians... granted... it existed prior to that - no doubt... but when he took office, he took it to a whole new level. I personally can not stand to even listen to the guy as virtually everything coming out of his yammer is nothing more than a lie, a distortion of the truth... or it is all about him. |
What you've written here describes the Bush administration FAR better than Clinton. Did Clinton use mass-media propaganda techniques first pioneered by Hitler in order to build support for a war that was based entirely on misinformation, manipulation, and lies?
NO! All Clinton did was screw an intern and then lie about it! Was this wrong? Yes! But can you even begin to compare it to Bush's crimes? NO!
You guys have an irrational hatred of Clinton. Your venom is totally disproportionate to Clinton's level of transgression. But for some reason you bend over backwards and try EXTREMELY hard to ignore all of the TERRIBLE things that the Bush Administration has done.
Please, please, please just stop getting your information from Fox News! In fact, don't get your information from ANY television news station.
You should watch PBS or maybe the Daily Show. It really is a sad state of affairs when a comedy news show is the only one in the country which is actually calling the nation's leaders to task when they do evil things... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5905
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | But hey... three complete sentences... and there is Richard's name... you can go ahead and dwell on this part of what I posted all day long FFT... it only demonstrates your inability to address the real issue... |
There's seven groups of sentences there (and one I didn't label). Did you not notice?
Hell, I don't even remember why you care so much about Clarke, that's how retarded this is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Trinity, your viewpoint is incredibly one-sided. It's like you get all of your information from Fox News. What you're saying isn't objective at all! |
Neither is what you are saying.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
He is the one who went ape on Fox. He is the one who continues to lie about the facts involved about what he did as President. He is the one who decided to start blaming the messenger while being interviewed.
|
Thank you for at least not referring to the interviewer as a journalist... Of course Clinton got angry! He was there to discuss the Clinton Global Initiative, and then the scum-bag Fox News interviewer attacked him! |
Who is only getting one side of the story now P? The agreement was 15 minutes for the Global initiative... 15 minutes of whatever he wanted to ask. Clinton is the one who wouldn't let go of the issue. Wallace even tried to change the subject as he knew what he agreed too... so please... this idea that Wallace 'attacked' him simply ludicris. Wallace asked him a question no one else evidently didn't have the courage or intelligence to ask him before. He didn't like being treated like a Rupublican... so he went nuts... it is a plain a day to me.
| Quote: | | Trinity1 wrote: |
He was/is a sorry excuse for a President. He did more to harm the office than Bush could ever imagine doing.
|
Trinity, this is perhaps the wrongest thing you've ever said. Serious historians are already talking about how Bush is going to go down in history as one of America's worst presidents ever. |
Yes... these same 'serious historians were saying the same thing about Abe Lincoln too while he was still in office...
| Quote: | | He hates the environment, |
| Quote: | | is doing his best to flood the Earth, |
| Quote: | | has endorsed torture as well as domestic spying, |
| Quote: | | and has abused the office more than Clinton ever did. The precedents set by Bush are truly egregious. |
Is there anything else you would like to add to this? Perhaps the fact he wants old people to eat dog food might be appropriate... 
| Quote: | | You should watch PBS |
You have got to be kidding me...
| Quote: | | or maybe the Daily Show. |
| Quote: | | It really is a sad state of affairs when a comedy news show is the only one in the country which is actually calling the nation's leaders to task when they do evil things... |
Perhaps you are not paying attention to CNN... the morning shows... 60 minutes... et. al. There have been several studies conducted about media bias and how left leaning it actually is, the double standard applied to conservitives, and how incolcated our universities have become with this thinking... I beleive it is your analysis, oyur perspective, your thinking on this whole issue that should be the one in question here... you seem to be the one unable to recognizew your own biases:
HERE
HERE
and HERE
It is obvious to those who can sit back and objectively examine your own assertions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 6:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Trinity1 wrote: | | But hey... three complete sentences... and there is Richard's name... you can go ahead and dwell on this part of what I posted all day long FFT... it only demonstrates your inability to address the real issue... |
There's seven groups of sentences there (and one I didn't label). Did you not notice?
Hell, I don't even remember why you care so much about Clarke, that's how retarded this is. |
Thanks FFT... like I said... three sentences actually dealing with the issue at hand. The first four we part of those softball questions Wallace tossed him dealing with 'what do past Presidents do with their lives... etc... just like I initially stated...
The next three dealt with the question that set him off. He couldn't help himself. I don't remember ever seeing the man confronted like this during any type of interview... and that is what got him so riled up... no one in the media treats he like he deserves to be treated... what in tarnation does he expect?
So... the point and assertion stand evidently. I'm not sure if you are ever going to get to the issuse at hand or not... but you keep evidently are insisting to keep digging this hole deeper and deeper... it is actually perplexing to me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6844
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | I DO attack Clinton. |
When?
Is this it?
| Quote: | I think it was bad that he destroyed that pharmaceutical factory in the Sudan. I also think it was bad that he cheated on his wife with an intern. I also think it's bad that he can't seem to keep his hands off of other women. I also think it's bad that he lied under oath.
He also didn't do enough for the environment as president. |
If this is how you attack someone, what do you call all of your rantings about Bush?
You think it was bad he destroyed....? Are you not sure?
| Quote: | On August 20, 1998, U.S. Tomahawk cruise missiles struck and destroyed al-Shifa Pharmaceutical Factory in Khartoum, the capital of the Sudan. The United States said the attack was in response to the bombings two weeks earlier of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which it believed were orchestrated by Osama bin Laden. U.S. officials said the bombing of the Sudanese facility was necessary to prevent bin Laden from acquiring deadly nerve gas precursors that were being produced at Shifa. The Sudanese government denies that chemical weapons (CW) have ever been produced at Shifa or anywhere else in the country.
The missiles struck the Shifa factory at approximately 7:30 p.m. Khartoum time, killing one and injuring 10 Sudanese people in the vicinity. The explosions and ensuing fire consumed the facility, with all but three sections “unrecognizably demolished,” according to a reporter on site. The three remaining sections—the administration section, water-cooling works, and plant laboratory—suffered severe damage.
The Nonproliferation Review/Fall 1998 |
By your standards P123, Clinton lied to support military action and people died. He is a lying murderer - where are all your posts decrying him as an evil warmongering murderer?
So Clinton is a liar, a murderer, an adulteror, a perjurer, and you think it is bad....
| Quote: | | I'm no fan of Clinton's. For example, I wouldn't have voted for him. |
So you would have voted for Bush Sr.? Or Dole?
| Quote: | | But I like to think that I've got a reasonable perspective on this issue. |
I'm sure you would like to think that. It is painfully obvious that you don't, but you feel free to go ahead and think it anyway.: |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6796
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 27, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Trinity1 wrote: | | Wallace asked him a question no one else evidently didn't have the courage or intelligence to ask him before. He didn't like being treated like a Rupublican... so he went nuts... it is a plain a day to me. |
I HOPE YOU'RE KIDDING!
Do you seriously think that Republicans get asked hard questions on the news???
Almost NOBODY in the media challenged the Bush Administration AT ALL during the time between Sept. 11th and the Iraq war. The fourth estate TOTALLY DISAPPEARED, and the Administration was allowed to do anything it wanted. And yes, Fox News was the worst of the lot; they're notorious for throwing soft balls to Republicans.
In the debate over who is to blame about Sept. 11th, the MAIN argument comes from Richard Clarke. He was a Republican. He worked National Security for George H.W. Bush. But he was so good that Clinton (in a very enlightened moment) kept him on.
Clarke explains EXACTLY what happened. Bush was MUCH worse than Clinton in dealing with Al Quaeda.
On a related note, Clarke very clearly shows to what extent the Bush Administration was telling lies trying to link Osama and Saddam:
(From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke)
| Quote: | | Clarke says that on September 12, 2001, President Bush "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. After an initial denial, the White House has since conceded that the meeting took place. In response he wrote a report stating there was absolutely no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the FBI, and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit," apparently unshown to the President. |
Clarke really was a world expert on terrorism, and he really was telling the truth. It is the Bush Administration that has been telling all sorts of lies:
1. That there was GOOD EVIDENCE for WMDs in Iraq.
2. That there was GOOD EVIDENCE showing a link between Al Quaeda and Saddam.
3. That they were vigorously hunting down Bin Laden in the 8 months between their election and Sept. 11th.
Not to mention using mass media propaganda techniques to sell all of these lies... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
