Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Bill Bennett


Henry

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Air Sarge

I have but one question. When clinton was in the Oval Office getting a hummer when he should have been chasing taliban, it was deemed a "personal matter that did not affect his performance" and was a, "Private matter between him and the first lady". So.........Why is it diffent now? Granted, I'm a little disapponted in the guy, but at least his behavior didn't affect national security or anyone else for that matter.

You do realize the President doesn't "chase Taliban" himself? If you think Clinton should have chased Taliban, than the next question is why didn't Dubya start chasing Taliban before September?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by phanatic

Well thank God the moderators here to not conduct their tailgate like the democratic underground conducts their website. After all, there is a CONSERVATIVE majority here. I love the fact we can have discussions from both the left and right's perspective. I only lasted 4 post at DU. All I did was ask why Tom Daschle stated in 98' that diplomacy had failed and their only course of action was to use military force. Now he states that the president has failed miserably in diplomacy? So upon trying to make my fifth post i received this message.

Nothing like a good debate. So why do they want a site where all they do is clap and cheer every response. Maybe they can add those laugh sound effects you hear in TV sitcoms. At least you would'nt be in danger of laughing inappropriately.

:doh: :rolleyes: :gus: :shootinth

Do you think "things" don't go on here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by phanatic

Well thank God the moderators here to not conduct their tailgate like the democratic underground conducts their website. After all, there is a CONSERVATIVE majority here. I love the fact we can have discussions from both the left and right's perspective. I only lasted 4 post at DU. All I did was ask why Tom Daschle stated in 98' that diplomacy had failed and their only course of action was to use military force. Now he states that the president has failed miserably in diplomacy? So upon trying to make my fifth post i received this message.

Nothing like a good debate. So why do they want a site where all they do is clap and cheer every response. Maybe they can add those laugh sound effects you hear in TV sitcoms. At least you would'nt be in danger of laughing inappropriately.

:doh: :rolleyes: :gus: :shootinth

Phan - for an almost exact right-wing version for DU, check out freerepublic.com. Same mix of reasonable posters, extremist fruitcakes and intolerance for opposing viewpoints.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art, Here is my Final response....

You are flat out wrong for one reason. You did not see the Fox report in question, YET you are an authority on the matter.

Second, It's amazing that you say I've lost sleep and can't let it drop, YET here you are post for post right along with me. Trust me, I don't give you a second thought once the computer is turned off.. You have an amazingly high opinion of yourself. That doesn't suprise me though.

Mix it up and muddy the issue all you want, but the facts remain;

1. You didn't see the Fox report in question, yet you are an expert on it and can tell me that I and other news professionals that DID see it are wrong about it and WE misinterpreted it... :doh:

2. Bush would not answer a question about drug use that 12 other candidates would answer, thus, any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that Bush has something to hide.

I'm done, you can have the final word, you can do all the name calling you want. I won't stoop to your 9 year old level. Art, Grow up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Code,

You wrote, "You did not see the Fox report in question, YET you are an authority on the matter." This is more assertion by ignorance than by knowledge, Code. In fact, I did see what Fox did. In fact, I know exactly the situation. And, as I prompted you in the thread, you need to show the link and report that displays that Fox or CNN or MSNBC or any other American media outlet was given access to an official detention center for POWs.

The exact report you're talking about was Fox showing people who'd just been captured and who were cuffed and in process of being processed, loaded up, and taken off to the camp. As you, yourself, described, you saw, "I said Fox was showing Iraqi prisoners, handcuffed and sitting on the ground separated from each other."

Precisely what you saw. And precisely the evidence you needed to realize that you didn't see a single POW as defined by the Geneva Convention. Iraqis taken on the battlefield either through combat or through surrender were bound, blindfolded and/or gagged and put off to the side. While they are in the hands of the people who took them, they are not yet Prisoners of War. Only once they are taken into custody by the Detaining Power from the people who took them do they become Prisoners of War. At that point, they have their handcuffs and blindfolds or gags removed.

What you saw on American television of all sorts was the surrender and initial handling of what would shortly become Prisoners of War as defined by the Geneva Convention. You described this perfectly as the initial capture and processing on the battlefield by the units capturing and the reporters embedded within those units.

Again, what is clear is that you don't understand a thing and can't wrap your mind around the facts. No one disputes you saw what you saw. You did. I did. The whole world did. But, what you saw was not what was seen on Al Jazeera through Iraq Television. What was seen there was a clear violation of the Geneva Convention. The Vice President of the country announced the Prisoners were taken. He indicated they would be shown before the world. They were interviewed and displayed by state run television after they were removed from the battlefield, making them Prisoners of War as defined by the Geneva Convention.

What America networks showed was the initial surrender and processing of PRE-POWs. Not one American or any other media outlet showed prisoners once in the detention centers. That you don't understand a thing doesn't make it wrong. It just makes you a typical liberal who, when confronted by a chance to hate America, figures out a way to create support for it.

That you seem to have disabilities processing information is a fundamental flaw in you, Code. That you again, in this thread, had to post a false statement to validate your position, in fact invalidates your position. But, I'm glad you're done flailing. It was a pitiful effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by JackC

Art,

I have two questions for you, if you choose to answer.

1. Why are you hostile at times?

2. Why do you post such long threads?

HTTR

Jack,

Hostility appears when ignorance is displayed. Here, Code decided to restate a fictional quote he attributed to the President. Code's problem is simple. He's decided to take any pritned information he can find on the internet and parrot it as it's factual. Take, as an example, a while back in a thread about Bush being a dim bulb. Code reprinted a series of quotes attributed to Bush that actually were quotes said by others and have been in circulation for a dozen years.

He, among others, fails to support a position with information, and therefore, needs to be confronted for that display of weakness. You have had moments of weakness, but often have compensated by posting some solid stuff as well, even if it is merely liberal opinion and as distasteful as all liberal opinion is :).

That also explains why I write long. Information can't be bullet pointed. One must know a topic to present why another is wrong. One must verify his position with supporting information that builds upon itself to a conclusion. This is especially crucial when dealing with a person like Code who is not intellectually honest enough to avoid supplying fiction in support of a position he's taken. Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Art,

I think Code brings a lot to the table here. I would only hope that as Redskin fans we can speak to each other in a more polite manner. I believe name calling is a character flaw and try to obstain from it myself.

We all lose our cool sometimes, but let's try to at least show each other the respect deserved by all members of the Redskin Nation!

HTTR

Link to post
Share on other sites

JackC....a kinda like you....but pls...not a day goes by that you don't have some intentionally inflamatory/derogatory comment about Bush. I personally don't care...but don't wave the "let's all be adults flag" when your practice of the principle is somewhat selective......on this board: one gives and one gets...as long as no one threatens personal violence to another or exceeds all boundaries irt generally accepted "good behaviour"...I say let's have at it!

btw....is JackC for the former owner? he lived a somewhat jaded life himself my friend!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fan,

I like you too but Jimbo is correct. I try not to name call fellow Redskins fans on this board no matter how wrong they may be on the issues.

HTTR!

It is kind of funny how some people take it personally when I take shots at Bush. If I did that with Clinton I would be upset all of the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JackC...I know where you are coming from........It's not taking shots at Bush that matters......I just think that a principle applies across the board...but let's settle for some Skins comity: at least until the next argument!!!!.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...