Bill Proposal to repeal 22nd amendment

If this every passed (which it obviously wont), it would be cool to see bill clinton run against george bush. There'd be lots of screaming and yelling on both sides, but I think clinton would still win.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']If this every passed (which it obviously wont), it would be cool to see bill clinton run against george bush.[/QUOTE]
Oh man, just the idea of that race gets me all hot and bothered :)
 
That is probably the greatest reason why repealing the 22nd amendment will never pass. Instead of dealing with Hillary Clinton in 2008, they would have to contend with Bill Clinton. Clinton would most likely win in a landslide. Personally, I don't particularly like Bill Clinton, but I would vote for him since he would be much, much better for our country than more of GWB.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']I think Hillary might be a little pissed if Bill got to run again instead of her. :lol:[/QUOTE]

cuz she wants to get presidential status head service as a form of revenge ;)?
 
Even better-> Hilary vs Bill!

I'd vote for Bill. So what if he got head in office? We didn't have any big troubles and money was good.... but then I was 12 at the time and didn't really pay attention.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Even better-> Hilary vs Bill!

I'd vote for Bill. So what if he got head in office? We didn't have any big troubles and money was good.... but then I was 12 at the time and didn't really pay attention.[/QUOTE]

It is with amusement that I note you are sleeping in your avatar and you post the comment:

"We didn't have any big troubles and money was good"

1. Internet Bubble?
2. Terrorist threat to the US?

Go back to sleep.

CTL
 
[quote name='CTLesq']It is with amusement that I note you are sleeping in your avatar and you post the comment:

...

Go back to sleep.[/QUOTE]

Way to debate, CTL, never seen anyone as smart and witty as you in action!
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Way to debate, CTL, never seen anyone as smart and witty as you in action![/QUOTE]

Shouldn't you be editing your signature to include a kitten comment or be at the store buying Meow-Mix?

But, I agree. I was brillant.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']It is with amusement that I note you are sleeping in your avatar and you post the comment:

"We didn't have any big troubles and money was good"

1. Internet Bubble?
2. Terrorist threat to the US?

Go back to sleep.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Money WAS good, but then people got (more)greedy and started overtending themselves.

What terrorist threat? I don't recollect any specific acts in that era. Terrism is like the common cold. You can treat it as it happens, but you can never get rid of it. Killing terrorist just makes them into martyrs. This 'war on terrorism' is so asinine, its asiTEN. Have you ever tried to pick up a hand full of sand? The tighter you sqeeze it, the more it oozes out of your grip.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Money WAS good, but then people got (more)greedy and started overtending themselves.

What terrorist threat? I don't recollect any specific acts in that era. Terrism is like the common cold. You can treat it as it happens, but you can never get rid of it. Killing terrorist just makes them into martyrs. This 'war on terrorism' is so asinine, its asiTEN. Have you ever tried to pick up a hand full of sand? The tighter you sqeeze it, the more it oozes out of your grip.[/QUOTE]

Oh that you kept your promises.

[quote name='Kayden']I don't need to use a forum function to ignore you. I can be an adult and just not pay attention to what ever garbage you spew out. I genereally only read your posts if you're quoted by someone with half a brain. However, given the company you keep, it's a rare occurance.[/quote]
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Oh that you kept your promises.[/QUOTE]

Lets recap.

I made a post stating my opinion.

You made a quasi civil reply contracting me, presumably because I said I'd vote for a Democrat.

I questioned the reasoning behind your opposition.

You resorted to your conservative kitty killer mentality.
 
I can't keep track of how many posts you have made stating you are going to ignore me. Its much like the people who post a "goodbye" thread on a forum.

Ignore me or STFU about it.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I can't keep track of how many posts you have made stating you are going to ignore me. Its much like the people who post a "goodbye" thread on a forum.

Ignore me or STFU about it.[/QUOTE]

but...but...but...silence=acceptance, right? what if he doesn't accept you?

myke.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']I can't keep track of how many posts you have made stating you are going to ignore me. Its much like the people who post a "goodbye" thread on a forum.

Ignore me or STFU about it.[/QUOTE]

I ignore the ultra right wing drivel you babble forth. I do enjoy pointing out the gaping flaws in your logic, or just making fun of you. I do ignore you 90% of the time. I've only read a minute fraction of your posts.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']but...but...but...silence=acceptance, right? what if he doesn't accept you?

myke.[/QUOTE]

Not ... my ... problem ... when ... he ... makes ... a ... statement ... he ... is ... going to ... ignore ... me.
 
[quote name='CTLesq']Not ... my ... problem ... when ... he ... makes ... a ... statement ... he ... is ... going to ... ignore ... me.[/QUOTE]

I don't rant and rave about every stupid ass comment you make. As I've said, I do ignore about 90% of what you have to say. I'm a big enough boy where I can not read your posts without resorting to a software feature.
 
[quote name='Kayden']I don't rant and rave about every stupid ass comment you make. As I've said, I do ignore about 90% of what you have to say. I'm a big enough boy where I can not read your posts without resorting to a software feature.[/QUOTE]

Actually... you do.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Actually... you do.[/QUOTE]

Not every post. Also, when I generally speak up its about how childish you all act as a whole, not just CTL.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Not every post. Also, when I generally speak up its about how childish you all act as a whole, not just CTL.[/QUOTE]

I recommend contibuting to the topic then, instead of contributing to what you call the problem. You can dislike the vs. forums, but you're doing nothing to stop it or change anything.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I recommend contibuting to the topic then, instead of contributing to what you call the problem. You can dislike the vs. forums, but you're doing nothing to stop it or change anything.[/QUOTE]

I'm trying to point out the futility of hammering others with personal attacks and making sweeping blanket statements about every/any/all ideologies/religions/political agendas/etc.


Calling PAD a fucking retarded, right wing, dumb ass conservative doesn't do much beyond make him call someone else a kitty killing, tree hugging, flower fucking hippy.

I'm trying to promote the use of actual fact and logic... or atleast disuade the senseless use of the same trite arguements consisting of political labels, personal attacks and religious persecution.
 
[quote name='Kayden']Calling PAD a fucking retarded, right wing, dumb ass conservative doesn't do much beyond make him call someone else a kitty killing, tree hugging, flower fucking hippy.[/QUOTE]

Hmm - I didn't know someone was accused of being a cat-killing hippie. It's one of them thar oxymorons, like "civil servant" or "religious right" (since they're always wrong... ba-dum-dum-tssssss)
 
[quote name='Kayden']I'm trying to promote the use of actual fact and logic... [/QUOTE]

Do it, then. Someone's bound to latch onto it.

myke.
 
[quote name='Kayden']
Calling PAD a fucking retarded, right wing, dumb ass conservative doesn't do much beyond make him call someone else a kitty killing, tree hugging, flower fucking hippy.
[/QUOTE]

Flower fucking, I gotta try that.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Flower fucking, I gotta try that.[/QUOTE]

its good. Don't go cheap with the carnations. Spend the extra money, its worth it.
 
[quote name='Kayden']What terrorist threat? I don't recollect any specific acts in that era.[/QUOTE]

Have you been smoking something, or are you just goading PAD and CTL? Because you can't have forgotten the WTC in '93, USS Cole and the African embassy bombings.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Have you been smoking something, or are you just goading PAD and CTL? Because you can't have forgotten the WTC in '93, USS Cole and the African embassy bombings.[/QUOTE]

Didnt the 93 wtc just chip a little bit of concrete in a underground garage? USS Cole?

African Embassy?

What can I say... I went to a public school. All we learned about were the 'founding framers' :roll:

PS, I hate the news because they only glorify the bad shit, so I choose to not watch it.
 
I still never figured out why the uss cole is considered a terrorist attack, to me when you attack a us navy ship then the last thing it is is a terrorist attack.
 
Because they're bad, so they must be terrorists. All bad people are terrorists - everyone knows that. Just like those terrorists who keep attacking our troops in Iraq.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Because they're bad, so they must be terrorists. All bad people are terrorists - everyone knows that. Just like those terrorists who keep attacking our troops in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

Yea... damn terrorists, how dare they want us out of their country.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I still never figured out why the uss cole is considered a terrorist attack, to me when you attack a us navy ship then the last thing it is is a terrorist attack.[/QUOTE]

Good point, it was a military attack. However, it was carried out by al Qaeda, the same people who perform terrorist attacks, and I think that's why it's thought of in the same way. Obviously the '93 WTC and African embassy attacks were terrorist attacks.
 
Wow, nobody is going to attack me for my previous post? PAD and CTLesq must be out of town or something.

Anyway, why many of the attacks in Iraq and on the USS Cole can be considered terrorist attacks: because they're generally done under the guise of the attackers merely being civilians. A straight-forward attack against military bases or personel are clearly not terrorist acts, but when you get an old chevy, put a bunch of explosives in the back and pretend to be just a normal civilian while you drive it to your destination, that at the very least is extremely dishonorable, and can be considered a terrorist act. The attack on the USS Cole (IIRC) was done with a normal civilian speedboat that had been wired up with bombs that were detonated when they got close.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Wow, nobody is going to attack me for my previous post? PAD and CTLesq must be out of town or something.

Anyway, why many of the attacks in Iraq and on the USS Cole can be considered terrorist attacks: because they're generally done under the guise of the attackers merely being civilians. A straight-forward attack against military bases or personel are clearly not terrorist acts, but when you get an old chevy, put a bunch of explosives in the back and pretend to be just a normal civilian while you drive it to your destination, that at the very least is extremely dishonorable, and can be considered a terrorist act. The attack on the USS Cole (IIRC) was done with a normal civilian speedboat that had been wired up with bombs that were detonated when they got close.[/QUOTE]

But stuff like that was done in vietnam, and it was never considered terrorism. And, on a technicallity, much of what we do in Iraq would be considered terrorism if you want to include every possible interpretation. To me, the uss cole seems more like a tactic used in guerilla war, but not really a terrorist tactic (as the term is normally uses).
 
[quote name='Drocket']Because they're bad, so they must be terrorists. All bad people are terrorists - everyone knows that. Just like those terrorists who keep attacking our troops in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

The same people (organizations, anyway) who are attacking our troops are also attacking innocent civilians to further their cause. Doesn't that make them terrorists?

It's like that old joke: blah blah blah build a barn, dig a ditch, etc etc but screw one sheep...
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But stuff like that was done in vietnam, and it was never considered terrorism. And, on a technicallity, much of what we do in Iraq would be considered terrorism if you want to include every possible interpretation.[/QUOTE]

Illustrating just how little you know what is going on there while you make sweeping generalizations.
 
Hes a conservative, all they understand is sweeping generalizations... don't expect shades of grey from a blind man.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']But stuff like that was done in vietnam, and it was never considered terrorism. And, on a technicallity, much of what we do in Iraq would be considered terrorism if you want to include every possible interpretation. To me, the uss cole seems more like a tactic used in guerilla war, but not really a terrorist tactic (as the term is normally uses).[/QUOTE]

There's a fine line between terrorism against a military target and a "sneak attack"

However I believe that Pearl Harbor would be a sneak attack, whereas the Cole bombing (because it was not made by a recognized world nation) was terrorism.
 
[quote name='Senator Dick Durban']sweeping generalization? Where?[/QUOTE]

The question for you is: where are your specific examples since you allege US troops are committing acts of terrorism. Based on your scurilous and unsupported smear I committed terrorist acts while I was there.

[quote name='Kayden']Hes a conservative, all they understand is sweeping generalizations... don't expect shades of grey from a blind man.[/quote]

Yawn:

[quote name='Kayden']I don't need to use a forum function to ignore you. I can be an adult and just not pay attention to what ever garbage you spew out. I genereally only read your posts if you're quoted by someone with half a brain. However, given the company you keep, it's a rare occurance.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Kayden']I was replying to alonzo.[/QUOTE]

In a response to me or a response about me we all get to the same place.
 
[quote name='camoor']There's a fine line between terrorism against a military target and a "sneak attack"

However I believe that Pearl Harbor would be a sneak attack, whereas the Cole bombing (because it was not made by a recognized world nation) was terrorism.[/QUOTE]

But many would not include an attack against a military target as terrorism, that's the problem with the term, there is no clear definition. The only broadly accepted definition is targetted attacks on civilian targets, or at least where civilians are expected to be collateral damage, even if they're not the primary target. Though it sounds like any sneak attack by a rebel group would be considered terrorism under your logic.

The question for you is: where are your specific examples since you allege US troops are committing acts of terrorism. Based on your scurilous and unsupported smear I committed terrorist acts while I was there.
Click to expand...

Where is your reading ability? It was obvious I was disagreeing with the wide range of cases that the term terrorism is applied to.
And, on a technicallity, much of what we do in Iraq would be considered terrorism if you want to include every possible interpretation.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top