Obama and the Company He Keeps

[Alpha1]

These Dims are the ones that can read this quote from Clinton.....

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

and then point out that Clinton didn't use the words 'invade', 'war', or 'attack' as if that in some magical way the phase "we have to use force" does not in essence mean the same thing conveyed by those very words ....

Parsing the words and finding a distinction without a difference is their specialty.....They actually take pride in lying to themselves and think its a badge of honor instead of the sign of stupidity it really is......

(now we'll heard about "projecting")

 

[jreeves]

Without getting into Black Liberation Theology specifically, one should note that liberation theologies have been very big with the Catholic Church for years. In fact, they (or at least a denomination of the CC) may have invented the concept, and have used it in Latin America and Africa quite a bit.

And like I have debunked this in the past, secular religions have frequently spun off radicals. For instance, the Islam religion spinning off the Jahadist.

 

[ReillyT]

And like I have debunked this in the past, secular religions have frequently spun off radicals. For instance, the Islam religion spinning off the Jahadist.

One, how do you debunk something that is clearly and demonstrably true?

Two, what is a secular religion? I only ask because "secular" means essentially non-religious.

Three, when did the Jesuits become radicals? Are the Franciscans and Dominicans also radicals?

 

[jreeves]

One, how do you debunk something that is clearly and demonstrably true?

Two, what is a secular religion? I only ask because "secular" means essentially non-religious.

Three, when did the Jesuits become radicals? Are the Franciscans and Dominicans also radicals?

No, your implicit claim that just because BLT spun off of Catholism it is acceptable doesn't hold water.

By using the term secular I meant regular or mainstream religions. There are different meanings of secular other than non-religious. By the way I don't consider Jahadist to be a religion, I consider that to be a perversion of a religion, much like the Branch Davidians, Jonestown crew and Black Liberation Theologist.

 

[ReillyT]

No, your implicit claim that just because BLT spun off of Catholism it is acceptable doesn't hold water.

Funny that if this was my implied intention I should have begun the sentence "Without getting into Black Liberation Theology specifically." You have remarkable perceptivity.

By using the term secular I meant regular or mainstream religions. There are different meanings of secular other than non-religious. By the way I don't consider Jahadist to be a religion, I consider that to be a perversion of a religion, much like the Branch Davidians, Jonestown crew and Black Liberation Theologist.

Perhaps if you mean "mainstream," you should use "mainstream." You see, if your words are explicit, people don't have to try to read some hidden meaning into what you say. Since "secular" doesn't mean "mainstream" (I looked it up to be sure), I was a bit confused.

So you do think the Jesuits are radicals?

 

[jreeves]

Funny that if this was my implied intention I should have begun the sentence "Without getting into Black Liberation Theology specifically." You have remarkable perceptivity.



Perhaps if you mean "mainstream," you should use "mainstream." You see, if your words are explicit, people don't have to try to read some hidden meaning into what you say. Since "secular" doesn't mean "mainstream" (I looked it up to be sure), I was a bit confused.

So you do think the Jesuits are radicals?

Sorry about the misuse of the word secular, ok mainstream religions have often morphed into radicals as I have previously posted.

No I don't think Jesuits are radicals but black theologists are radicals.

 

[maineman]

Look at it this way, Shit4Brains1 and 2


--------------------------------------------
The Nazies were responsible for 6,000,000 + deaths

Between 1930 and 1950....50,000,000+ people died in the Gulags of the Soviet Union.....

Pol Pot....Only about 3,000,000 died ...

If this Dimocratic Asshole, Durbin, compares the actions of US Troops, FBI agents, CIA spooks, or the fuckin Girl Scouts of America to those of the Nazis, PolPot or the Russian Gulag he is a fuckin' anti-American traitor.....

NO AMERICAN COULD BE COMPARED TO THOSE that are responsible for the deaths of over 60,000,000 people....
Not by any stretch....get it .....Being members of the JackAss Party makes me doubt you all do get it....you keep defending the indefensible .....
Thats worst than just being a stupid hack....

Durbin was not comparing Gitmo to holocaust concentration camps, he was comparing it to German military POW camps.... different deal.... but, he apologized in any case, yet you keep bringing it up... get over it.

and calling me "shit4brains" is really not in keeping with our agreement, is it?

 

[Dogger]

These Dims are the ones that can read this quote from Clinton.....

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." Ex-President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

and then point out that Clinton didn't use the words 'invade', 'war', or 'attack' as if that in some magical way the phase "we have to use force" does not in essence mean the same thing conveyed by those very words ....

Parsing the words and finding a distinction without a difference is their specialty.....They actually take pride in lying to themselves and think its a badge of honor instead of the sign of stupidity it really is......

(now we'll heard about "projecting")

For a real treat in the art of parsing, find some right-wing spin on this part of Colin Powell's press remarks in Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001:

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

A month after Clinton left office, Powell admitted that sanctions had worked, and that Iraq was so weak Saddam couldn't even threaten his neighbors with conventional weapons. He never explained how Iraq grew from a weakling under Clinton to a major threat under Bush.

 

[Wolfmoon]

Add Bill Clinton to that list he opened up Free Trade with China and out sourced millions of American jobs!!! He Fought long and hard to do it and he's proud of it.

 

[Wolfmoon]

October 10, 2000

President Clinton will close years of political and economic debate Tuesday and seal a major achievement of his administration by signing off on normalized trade with China.Clinton will sign the measure, approved by Congress this year, in a White House ceremony Tuesday afternoon. The president has invited key lawmakers to the South Lawn to witness his signing of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.



SOURCE:

Clinton to sign China trade bill Tuesday
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-10/politics/clinton.pntr_1_wto-membership-china-global-trade-regime?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

.