God bless ya, Carlene-

I know Waxy and I have given up trying to talk to the "conservatives" on this site; at least you're still in there fightin'! Just remember one thing: they never let facts get in the way of a good argument!

 

Bush was effectively AWOL for much of his 'tour of duty' in the Texa guard, also known as the rich kids' way to avoid Viet Nam.

 

Anyone notice it's getting a little "warm" in here?

 

Here we go again, a bunch of users looking like silly geese honking to convince everyone of their side of the political view. If ya'll had any idea how it looks to those not participating you'd stop doing it, especially since you convince no one of your point of view. Hear that circus music in the background? Its playing for you!

 

What was the poor kids method, going to school in England where Bill Clinton dodged the draft?

 

I can't believe that Ironbelly said Clinton "should be respected" Boy, I dunno, if someone lied straight to my face on national TV that they didn't have an affair, I should respect them??? Real role model for America's youth...Could you honestly say that he was a Role model for your children??? Gimme a break...

 

Research? Carlene, did you read the sources for that excuse for an article? One in depth analysis that didn't even attempt to hide its bias in the title and a few newspaper articles.

Anybody that knows anything about retrospective investigation knows it takes more than newspaper articles. The NYT and Washington Post are the two most respected journals for international news in the country, but those articles are HARDLY basis for the conclusion that was drawn.

Clinton didn't do NEARLY enough to address the terrorism problem, ESPECIALLY Bin Laden. It takes a serious commitment, not a few dozen Tomahawks launched at someone who KNOWS you're looking for them

 

YellerMach,
dtpatt2,
1997RangerXLT,

 

Oh yeah?

Webmaster -





I stand by my comment - research is more than just listing a few sources and making an uneducated conjecture - it's about using credible (which except for one, the Snopes article did), relevant (it didn't - newspaper articles are brief overviews, not in depth primary sources), and diversified (it didn't) sources and using those to say only what you can be certain of (it didn't)

 

I was making a statement that you guys sound like a bunch of clowns (see the picture below) trying to convince everyone of your political point of views. Its almost as bad as the freaking "my political falic symbol is bigger than yours" on the CNN web site message threads.

We ought to change the political threads to have the following next to them:



https://www.ford-trucks.com/kens_stuff/nyuknyuk.wav https://www.ford-trucks.com/kens_stuff/theme_at_end.wav

That way people going into them know in advance how seriously to take them.

 

Yes I did - did you? There's much documented information out there available to the public proving the "True" / "False" claims by Snopes. The only reason I don't mind quoting them is for the simple fact that if they say something is true/false and I don't want to believe it, I go do the research myself only to find that they were right. I always do the research when it comes to defending our prev. President because I know how many closed minds are on this site that don't take the time to do the research themselves.

Same as above.........I believe the newspapers less than I believe in UFO's......

The only serious commitment it takes is something as tragic as 9/11. Clinton was unable to persue the matter of Bin Laden any further because of Congress (which at the time was controled by R's). The research I've done proves me right. Give me something other than the "Closed Mind" to prove me wrong.

BTW - I wouldn't have even gotten into this thread had it not been for the continual bashing of "My President". Past or present!!! I don't approve or agree with everything Clinton did either.

I don't particularly care for President Bush, but, I won't say anything against him as long as he does his job of taking care of my needs while he holds office. Like it or not and whether I voted for him or not - he is my President. Once he does something to prove to me that he's truely not out for me, as one of the people, then I'll start with all of the Bush bashing/jokes I can get my hands on. Difference is, I will make sure that I have my facts straight first. Start reading everything instead of just the parts that appeal to your way of thinking.......

 

Well the snopes website is a good one for debunking rumors and false accusations. However the snopes data seems to support the dislike of Clintons handling of the terrorist actions against our citizens. Read between the lines, the Saudi's refused the US access. The Saudi's executed the suspects before we could talk to them. The Yemini goverment rfused to cooperate. The story line reads almost the same in almost all of the cases. This leads me to believe that Clinton did order investigations and pursued the suspects to some degree, however, it is quite clear that with the exception of the USS Cole (he may not had the time left in office to get results) President Clinton, while ordering investigations and wanting the perpetrators brought to justice, did very little after his initial actions. There was no pressure exerted by our goverment to get at these arrested suspects. It's almost as if Clintons administration said "what, they caught them, ok .....good enough for me...case closed". If you want to argue that was not the case and Clinton did try to get at these suspects but was rebuked by the Saudi's and Yemini's time and time again, then I would have to say that Clintons administration was very poor at foreign affairs and diplomatic relations. I say this because the current administration seems to be able to get the access it needs from the Saudi's and Yemini's at just about every turn. So, I guess it comes down to this, either Clinton didn't exert any real pressure to bring the criminals to justice. (thus Clinton being known as the "Paper Tiger President") Or president Clinton was really innept at diplomacy. Either way doesn't bode well for Clinton when they write the history books.


P.S. The Paper Tiger term for the Clinton Administration was given to it by our enemies abroad. Not by Clintons political enemies. It's a shame really, I actually like Clinton on a personal level, he is very personable and charimatic. (I have met him twice) Clinton just made too many mistakes with regard to foreign policy. His domestic agenda was actually more favorable to republicans than most republicans would ever admit.

 

HEHE......I guess I should proof read my thread next time. A few spelling mistakes. Sorry.

P.S. The most effective arguements are the ones that do not include personal attacks or insults. When you stoop to that level, your arguement loses credibility.

 

Can't you just delete the people you don't like? Don't like people that log-on and post often? Prefer people that do not post and participate? Want 'General' (80,000 posts) to drop through the floor like some of the other specific threads? (152 posts) Just doing a little blah, blah blahing of your own? What's up? We are attacking ideas not FTE members, your post really surprised me.

 

I never said I didn't like you guys. Besides, I don't delete people because I don't like them, if that were the case several people would have been gone a long time ago. It just gets a little old seeing the same people thumping their chests over politics, knowing that they aren't changing anyone's minds, causing flame wars and basically filling up the database with fluff. Nothing wrong with a user having high post counts, especially when its useful content and more than half aren't "general".