Staredit Network

Yeah, thats what I think.

Please do not make any sexual inuendos.

inuendos isn't even a word kame... It's :

in·nu·en·do
n.

1. An indirect or subtle, usually derogatory implication in expression; an insinuation.
2. Law.
1. A plaintiff's interpretation in a libel suit of allegedly libelous or slanderous material.
2. A parenthetic explanation of a word or charge in a legal document.

Ihatett's general debating strategy is the following, for future reference: Attack the person he is arguing against with demeaning semi-slurs. Ignore the actual debate until he has went at his opponent long enough to frustrate and/or infuriate them, at which point he actually debates. Arguing with an angry person is like arguing with a drunken person, emotion can easily blind reason. Now, on topic, Ihatett, you seem to forget that the same response would've been garnered by Clinton if HE had acted, yet you damn him and excuse Bush, an astounding movement of bias and blind party devotion. Clinton was not an amazing President, but he wasn't awful. How many planes were steered into buildings when he was in office? Atleast Clinton was trying to do something, perhaps not enough, but he was trying to do something before a crisis spawned. They're both overrated, but I prefer Clinton any day.

Yeah I figured that's the way he worked. I could have easilly replied to his last reply with some bitter response about how he must assume he's brilliant because he isn't a Bush-hater. But instead I choose to ignore it. No point in arguing with someone when they're main tactic is an attempt to you off. That's no fun at all.

Yep, I do that.



This I never do; show me where I sidestepped the arguement. It was he who posted off topic links. I never left the debate. I only say things directly related to the topic, (except for insults, but I make sure my post contains more than only those).



Like I said before, I always stick to the topic, and always pound on people who try and escape it. Most of my responses are similar in style to this one, which means I only go off topic if someone else has (like you, in this case).



Clever, except: I am not Republican. In no way am I a Bush supporter; nearly everything he does I wince at. I'm capitalist and believe in limited government, something that Bush and crowd don't give a f*ck about.

Yes, the Republicans would probably have pounced on Clinton. However, why should I mention that when Dev was claiming Bush didn't do enough? Me saying that would be an off-topic attack on Republicans, which you are doing right now.



Correct, with partisan Republicans in control of the of the legaslature, there was no way many left-wing bills were going to get through and ruin the country. He is no where near as bad as FDR, LBJ, etc. I often have to remind Republicans of this myself.

I'm sure you never knew this, but the towers were attacked by a truck bomb during Clinton's term.

However, while Bush decided to destory those responsible for the attacks that happened during his term, Clinton had an ridiculously minimal response (I believe a couple of cruise missiles were launched to no real effect).

Be careful when trying to slam Bush and promote Clinton like that; it could backfire!

Actually, you're wrong, I have read of the entire situation, I know damn well about the truck, and i knew damn well you'd bring it up. But remember, I said planes. PLANE does not equal TRUCK. It wasn't a serious comment, just give you a little detail to attack, just bait to prove to myself that I know what you're going to do.

Why would you set yourself up for another example of how Clinton failed?

Leftists such as yourself excel in avoiding any sort of debate. You instead prefer to sidestep detailed responses.

Well, I can't expect much more out of a group of people who believe that price-fixing wages helps the economy.

You failed to read my post, I see. I threw that out as bait to see if you'd do what I thought you would. I don't view anyone as invincible, and I don't love Clinton, I can admit he can, and did a few times, up. The point of saying that was to see if you're really as predictable as I think you are. You are. As I've said before, I don't know economics, and I don't really care until I can actually vote. I hardly know any of the stances of either parties outside of moral and constitutional matters. The reason I can't side with Bush is because of the Christian Right trying to say America is a Christian country, (conveniently skipping those little bill of rights sections such as, oh, Freedom of religion and freedom of speech), and that I can't side behind a war that's justification was changed when the first was proved without evidence.

I don't think as many of us would have minded if we had said something to the extent of, "Afghanistan is overrun by the Taliban, a group of Afghani gangsters if you will, and it lacks any real government. We're going in there to cleanse it of terroristic activity, and to install an actual, definitive government." Of course, I never had as much a problem with the Afghanistan conflict myself, but the Iraqi conflict was misjustified by Bush as to take out WMDs, of which numerous reports except a select few said that there were, indeed, no WMDs.

And while the economy might have slowed down near the end of Clinton's term, at least he did not fail to pay attention to it completely, ala Bush. Errrm, we're getting tax cuts (mainly to people that really don't need tax cuts), even though our national debt is growing exponentially. The general objectives of No Child Left Behind and the Patriot Act are noble, but the execution is horrible, and they aren't at all realistic.

On one of those fundamentalist quotes... errrm, I'll bring it up.



--James Watt (Secretary of the Interior to the Reagan administration)

All I can say is... yeah. Although that was Reagan and not Bush, you've seen all the junk that Bush has done with the environment.

That's enough for now, I hope.

I would have been fine if we invaded Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein and he outright said that. And I would have been even less mad about the war if Donald Rumsfeld actually did the invasion right.

How were my links off-topic. 2 supported why I think Clinton did a pretty good job, and 2 supported why I think Bush didn't.


When did I say that? I said he could have acted sooner because it was known by the FBI that an attack was coming by use of planes. In fact, I think he's done more than enough by invading a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.


How would they have ruined the country? I could say the same about right-wing legislature ruining the nation as well, but then you'd probably say I'm a stupid left-wing supporter or something, right? So can I make the same judgement about you?


Oh right because you know that whole getting out of the Depression and raising social welfare thing ruined as completely. LBJ was bad, but FDR did a lot to help this country - much of which still exists today, obviously. And we just seem to be getting stronger.


I, for one, knew that. But did he know it was going to happen beforehand?


The truck did a lot less damage compared to the planes bringing the whole towers down. And there are documents showing we knew that there was an attack involving planes being planned. So in that case, I'd assume Bush failed more.

I'm with Wilhelm, where I don't think Clinton was the best ever at all. But Bush really could have handled things a lot better with planning a large attack on a nation that had never declared any war on us.

Dude, those links did not support in any way your assertion: that Clinton warned Bush of upcoming terrorist attacks. If that isn't what you meant, than what you were saying was utterly meaningless (just like his response to the truck bombs).

I chose Clinton in this poll. Honestly, I think Bush is a better president than Clinton, but Clinton would win the election if these two were both running. Bush has been hated upon, mainly because of this whole war thing, which I am totally for. Without this war Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, and there would have been much more terrorism in this world. But no one ever wants to talk about good, the media does a terrific job in helping cover up good stuff. You also have to recognize that 9/11 was in no way at all Bush's fault, many people put that against him, and think that's a reason why he's a bad president. You also need to note that President Clinton didn't have any terrorist to worry about, he really had quite easy terms. Bush has done a whole lot more for this country than Clinton ever did, Clinton was just a politician. Bush... he's been a president. Now I'm not saying that Clinton was worthless, I think he did a lot of good things, however, this country has been more in need since Clinton's term ended. Bush has brought this country through hard-times that I can't see a candidate like Gore doing.

ha ha, if gore had won we would be in trouble right now

L o L! Except for the fact that all other aspects of the United States would be running much better, and we wouldn't be in Iraq. I'm pretty sure we would have gone into Afghanistan regardless of the president. But Iraq? No way.

And if I'm correct Saddam Hussein was in Iraq when we found him, and if we would have never invaded Iraq, we would have never captured the most dangerous terrorist in the world. Who knows what the world could be like if we never captured him with all those weapons and bombs they have. Al Gore is a complete lunatic, he even said that he discovered the internet, he's competely full of , almost as bad as John Kerry.

Meh. The current parties are both full of S.H.I.T. (Specially Handled Intelligence Tactics). >>

Clinton, Bush doesn't stand a chance anymore. His day's are done.

Bush's day's are done. I don't think he could handle another 3 years with handling all of those responsibilites. But Bush has done some good thing's for this country, And we all should respect that.

lol I think this is the greatest reply I've ever read here at SEN...unless it isn't complete sarcasm...

Do you really think that's the best post? No, it's not sarcasm by the way, it's the truth, everyone's still against Bush for some reason...

He's screwed this country in just about every aspect. And his invasion of Iraq's reasoning was lied about (I believe twice). Not only that, but our assault troops over there aren't peacekeepers. They're marines. One can blame Bush for 9/11, in a sense, because he ignored several intelligence reports that directly said what the terrorists were planning.

I also dislike how utterly über-Christian he puts himself as. It creates a bias for Christianity, which I think is a big no-no.

I think looking at what he's done wrong is too easy, and should start focusing on what he's done right (if anything) to bring into the light just exactly how bad he is.

Skipping to reply at this post so that I do not forget:

The reason there were no WMD's in the country when we searched was because we gave them too much leeway, which I beleive was a flaw on our government's part.

As I've said before: Let's see you do better.


And Tax cuts = More government revenues. At least if the middle class + is taxed. They have more pocket money, stimulating more buying, increasing the economy which pays someone else, giving them money, increasing the money they give to the government. Tax % = Down, Revenues = Up

Bush is a great president. Everyone hates him for the wrong reasons though, meh. There are people who have more power then him in the White House. Those are the people who can kick him out of office.

I love how you continue to say the same things without any proof or facts. Also, if every president shut down the entire United States and went into a state of panic every time there was a terrorist alert, this whole damn country would be hiding in their basements.