The nanny state isn’t an enforcement of values per se, its more like stopping something from going down the drainage pipe if you wanna get analogical about it. But the main cons about this is that it creates an atmosphere of lazyness where you wouldn’t have under say a government more committed to big business.
No, you’ve made it pretty clear what you give a flying fuck about.
The question that was asked at #49 and asked again at #66 and again at #127 and which is now asked for the fourth time. This question you miserable jackass:
Does this mean that in your judgement Clinton should have invaded Afghanistan and the Sudan? What preparation of the American public would have been necessary to get ready for that? You will recall that the American intervention in Afghanistan post 9/11 followed a groundswell of opinion that the Taliban regime had to be removed by force of arms if AlQaida was going to be naturalized. Was there any such ground swell following the WTC bombing, following the attacks on the African embassies, following the USS Cole attack? I don’t recall one.
You will also recall that support for the invasion of Iraq was generated by raising the specter of a Iraq–AlQaida partnership and the near certainty that Iraq was or already had armed AlQaida with unconventional weapons capable of causing massive destruction and vast loss of life. At the time all that propaganda campaign was going on responsible people on these boards were pointing out the weakness of the evidence supporting the conclusions that Iraq was threatening or in bed with Osama.
Be specific. What should Clinton have done?
He should have taken out the Al Queda nest by any means possible.
Oh, I thought you were refering to this question.
Because I don’t think he answered that one either.
Well, there you go! There is no question so complex and nuanced it cannot be reduced to a gross oversimplification.
Well, let’s see. Bush had 1 and 3/4 years in office prior to 9/11. Since Clinton failed so miserably, why didn’t Bush either take out Al Qaida or at least have plans to do so, especially since he had received warnings that an attack on American soil, possibly by flying planes into buildings, was intended?
I keep saying this, and I think it’s worth repeating:
One must wait around 25 years or so before judging a President, because it tends to take that long for the old political fights to end.
My worst?
Hoover, Coolidge, Andrew Johnson, Harding, Jackson, Grant, Pierce, and Buchanan.
You might want to work on your math there.
Er…
<slinks away :smack: ing repeatedly>
That’s it? Clinton should have done what ever was possible? He should have done what he should have done?
You are a wind bag. You have nothing constructive to say. You have nothing to add. You can only carp and bitch. You have not provided an answer to the four time asked question. You know that. You are now classed as one of the poo flinging monkeys. You deserve no further consideration. You have been given four (4 count ’em, 4) opportunities to defend your position and you have wasted those opportunities with this feeble excuse of a plan of action. “All means possible?” Possible? You blithering fool, you pippin-jay, you poltroon, you inadequate excuse.
Go away, kid, you’re bothering the grown-ups.
I’ve agreed with pretty much every other thing you’ve said in this thread, and was especially impressed with how you handled Liberal, but you’ve lost me here. This is just stupid. Law should not - can not - be predicated on anything so ephemeral as “feelings.” How do you determine the validity of an emotion in court? How do you guage severity? Emotions are measureless, subjective, and unprovable, three things that are antithetical to good law.
I’m not arguing against the idea of a seatbelt law. There may be very good reasons for having such a law. This just isn’t one of them.
Oh, and good luck with milroyj. Trust me, you won’t ever get him to concede a point or change an opinion. He’s more than capable of ignoring a direct question for pages, as seen here, and if finally cornered, willfully misunderstanding the question so drastically that his answer will be meaningless. And then he’ll just repeat it over and over, like bad spam software. Trying to debate him is frustrating and pointless. It is, however, occasionally amusing to poke him to see where he jumps. It’s always hard to the right, but you can never guess how far.
I am not a prolific poster here at the SDMB, but I do visit every day. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone as mind-bendingly willfully stupid as milroyj.
I am grateful beyond my ability to express it that he is one of the idiotic conservatives here. Thank goodness for people like Bricker and Shodan. I would hate to think that milroyj is typical of a sane conservative.
Beg to differ. Law rests on a foundation of accepted morality, which is, as it should be, ultimately a spiritual question. Sometimes men fall prey to the illusion that they are fundamentally rational, that they are above their feelings, superior to them.
It is wrong for the strong to prey upon the weak, we don’t think that, we don’t deduce that, it is not the result of some dialectic. We know that. We know it because our soul knows it. Because of it, we are human. Without it, we would be clattering adding machines, protoplasm and not metal, but just as empty, just as ridiculous, just as dead.
You don’t necessarily have to believe in God to commit blasphemy. This is not an accusation, I don’t claim you have done so. Merely a reminder, this way we keep each other sane. (Humor is usually better, but I haven’t a joke handy. Would that I had, I would have done a better job of it.) Compassion, patience, empathy, love, these are virtues. Intelligence is merely a characteristic, like being tall, or having curly hair. Reason is intelligence informed, guided by spirit. Not the pilot, only the navigator.
So long as the law remembers this, it remains a noble enterprise. The moment it forgets, it is just another chain to be broken. And there are so many, so very many.
Oh, well of course! Now you say that it all seems so simple!
So… how was he going to do that exactly? :wally
Yay!!
I’m just thrilled to death to see a conservative finally support President Clinton in his efforts to stop al Queda by bombing their training camps!
That was a huge step milroyj. Keep thinking, and maybe one day you’ll turn from the dark side.
Didn’t that turn out to be an aspirin factory?
It was the thought that counted.
Since you don’t give a flying fuck about a policy that increaces insurance rates and so costs people money why in all that’s holy should anyone give a flying fuck when you whine about money coming out of your salary via taxes?
You selfish little man.
It wasn’t bombed as a pharmaceutical factory. Besides, I believe that was in the Sudan, and was a retaliation for the embassy bombings, not an effort to kill bin Laden. It was known that he was in Afghanistan at the time.
According to Richard Clarke, “CIA and the Joint Chiefs had nominated not just buildings at the al Qaeda camp scheduled to host the meetings [meetings that bin Laden was supposed to attend], but also other al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and facilities in Sudan that bin Laden had invested in.”
…
“While the night went on, I assumed the targets were locked in. The President, however, was still wondering about one commercial facility in Sudan owned by bin Laden. At the last possible minute, he pulled that target off the list because it had no military or offensive value to al Qaeda. He left on the list the Shifa chemical plant that CIA had linked to al Qaeda and to a unique chemical weapons compound [EMPTA, a chemical component of VX nerve gas].”
I’m not going to defend a fuckup (it was) or say that Clinton shouldn’t be held responsible (he was), but the right can’t have it both ways. Either he didn’t do anything to stop al Qaeda, or he at least tried, which is certainly more than Bush did.