ST and Govt out of touch with American Politics

last SG · 2007-07-19T09:34:50+00:00

Repeat after me monkey brain: "Ad Hominen attacks do not constitute an argument."

walesa SG

In your obvious failure to comprehend the metaphorical comparison I'd drawn with regard to your view, resulting in a misguided interpretation that I'd been remotely interested in your gender or its innuendoes, it surely is remarkable that you could even remotely make sense of what, if your riposte is anything to go by, is effectively senseless.

Originally posted by Arapahoe:

Maybe I watch too much History channel. But here's a quote from Brookings Insitution. As quoted.

[b]Historians and scholars with the benefit of time and a measure of detachment will provide the authoritative judgments concerning what Mr. Clinton has accomplished, what was left undone

another pcs of sentence i thought it would be of your interest. Laughing

It's clear that the president's supporters and his detractors are hard at work seeking to shape the way historians will remember him, as is the president himself. In some ways, one of the defining characteristics of Mr. Clinton's legacy may be the self-consciousness of its pursuit

Even as an observer it doesn;t take a rocket scientist to read and learned the different perspective its all over the net.

And i would not put down former chairman of Fed Allan Greenspan over Bill seriously.

[/b]

Nevertheless, on to the merits of your argument. So what does that prove? That there are actually opinions are as diverse as the depths of the ocean with some offering more credibility than the rest?

So what is it you're disputing? Is there a particular source of "historians and scholars" whose views will some day be viewed as the irrefutable gospel truth on the successes and failures of the Clinton administration (or anything else for that matter)?

If anything, it's a failure on your part that as a mere "observer", you're unable to accept the fact that there're people who have more valid reasons than yours to hold a view opposing yours. Then again, in an over-zealous attempt to drive home your point and having exercised an obvious negligence in your analysis of Hillary's credentials through her association with a President who had been more active in Africa than any in the last 50 years, it's hardly rocket science to figure the source of your seemingly inexplicable flippancy.

And it certainly wouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure I'm not alone in crediting the Clinton administration for the longest economic boom in US history.

maurizio13 SG

Huh???

Nowadays NUS confer degrees on bachelor of management (wc)?

walesa SG

I suppose initiatives that fall short of meeting its initial objectives are all deemed failures, eh?

Maybe he had not made any impact on the scale you would like. Perhaps, your partiality has gotten the better of you in assessing this through tinted-glasses. After all, it's not rocket science that folks who genuinely believe Clinton to have done something for Africans (which I suppose, narrow-minded individuals would conveniently dismiss as being negligible) are aplenty. If you need a neutral source (and there're plenty others around, although I suppose someone with as misguided a mindset as yours might just overlook them), here's one whose plethora of views has generated a rather interesting debate. At the very least, it should prove that I'm not in the minority of one to believe there're indeed people out there who think Clinton has done something for Africa (in fact, had done more than any other administration in the last 50 years).

I suppose you've got problems with comprehending basic sentences in English as well? You can certainly count on Mat Toro for company if you plan to attend some English classes.

I'm pretty certain I said I'd put Clinton as the second finest President of the 20th Century behind FDR and not putting him beside FDR.

Obviously, you're in dire need of English lessons. In a valiant effort to divert attention from an obvious ignorance about the issue at hand (so have you figured if you're actually contending the fact that Clinton had actually done nothing or not done enough for his African initiative?), I see you've made a desperate effort to misinterpret what is a rigorous defense of a sound argument to be a fixation.

Any chance you might regard trial lawyers defending their clients to possess a disposition towards having a fixation with criminals? Perhaps, it's psychiatric help you need and you certainly wouldn't look out of place in an asylum.

It is. Who ever said it wasn't? That said, it's one thing disputing opinions and quite another matter debating facts. I'm not sure if someone possessing a suspect mental capacity would be sufficiently equipped to understand that though.

I don't and it's obvious Clinton doesn't need me to boost his CV. It wouldn't do much to self-contradicting idiots, anyway.

Apparently, self-contradiction doesn't seem far removed from the intellects of those with suspicious mental competence. If success cannot be measured in absolute terms, how do you quantitatively define "no impact"? To top that off, all that's coming from someone who advocates an "absolute" stance on Clinton's initiatives in Africa.

walesa SG

Mind, that's the quality of drivel espoused by someone who has an associate working as a consultant for both parties... Laughing

Mat Toro SG

What did you university confer you? WC?

Mat Toro SG

Originally posted by walesa:

Mind, that's the quality of drivel espoused by someone who has an associate working as a consultant for [b]both parties... Laughing [/b]

You fellas have obviously lost your debate, no wonder you need to team up to throw insults.

cheers

duotiga83 SG

you are the greatest joker in the speaker's corner i never seen here Mr. Green

Arapahoe SG

This still doesn't address your argument that Hillary's 2008 chances, compared to Obama's, are jeopardised because of your seemingly inexplicable belief (well, besides the shallow fact that the latter's an African-American) that Obama has the capacity to do more for Africa which you regard to be important for US foreign policy. All that from someone who obviously knew little about Clinton's efforts in Tanzania - well, only to revert your stance by insinuating that Clinton had not done enough (instead of suggesting he had done nothing) when your misguided allegations were challenged.

I believe u read too far into it. I said Obama fit the profile, and I also said he lacked experience. I would not thought about comparing Obama with Bill; after all Bill served 8 years as President the other is still running as candidates, his future is still unknown. You should know better for comparative seriously. As for shallow fact that he is an African American, and maybe that is one reason he is in the running.

Mat Toro SG

When my opponents gang together to do nothing but insults, thats when I know I have won. Why else would they do that if they can truely debate.

walesa SG

We don't debate with the insane and the delusional, much less those who are also linguistically-cum-arithmetically challenged. Laughing

As a matter of fact, it's only regarded as an insult because you can't live with a realistic brand of pragmatism which doesn't reflect too kindly on your deranged intellect.

LazerLordz SG

Ah, wanton presumptions and presuppositions..

Wonderful products aren't they not? Razz

So tell me, wise one, which purveyor of such warm, cossetted ideals did you procure them from? Very Happy

Oh, I'll be a jolly fine chap which ever way you choose to fling the herring back, because reading the past few pages has humoured me to no end. Laughing

walesa SG

Originally posted by Arapahoe:
[b]This still doesn't address your argument that Hillary's 2008 chances, compared to Obama's, are jeopardised because of your seemingly inexplicable belief (well, besides the shallow fact that the latter's an African-American) that Obama has the capacity to do more for Africa which you regard to be important for US foreign policy. All that from someone who obviously knew little about Clinton's efforts in Tanzania - well, only to revert your stance by insinuating that Clinton had not done enough (instead of suggesting he had done nothing) when your misguided allegations were challenged.

I believe u read too far into it. I said Obama fit the profile, and I also said he lacked experience. I would not thought about comparing Obama with Bill; after all Bill served 8 years as President the other is still running as candidates, his future is still unknown. You should know better for comparative seriously. As for shallow fact that he is an African American, and maybe that is one reason he is in the running.

[/b]

Originally posted by Arapahoe:
Obama raise a lot of $$ he has that financial capacity to go thru the end. He has the demeanor in his speech. If you listen carefully when he speaks he always fall back into the history of US civil liberty within context. That helps to get support from both parties member. Obama may also be the right profile to be the next chief for 2 reasons. First he doesn't have the excess baggage that Hiliary is carrying from Bill that I think is important. The future foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east. Than again the show is still early into

Have I read too much into it or have you been self-contradictory to the extent you can't coherently substantiate what you've been saying? On the basis of your initial post which you claimed Obama to have the edge over Hillary because of 1.the former not having the "excess baggage" of the latter through association with Bill Clinton and 2.the foreign policy that needs attention will be coming out from Africa and the middle east.

Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and accept - for whatever reason you've yet to explain - your first point as being a salient one that augurs well for your stance, I still see nothing but a load of self-contradictory polemics that is effectively senseless as far as your second point goes. Why should Obama have an edge over Hillary if Africa should indeed be a central theme of the next administration's foreign policy?

If you could even go as far as to suggest Africa should play a crucial role in determining the next administration's foreign policy, how then should Hillary - through her association with the most active President in the last 50 years in that region - be handicapped against a Senator who has virtually no experience of advocating/advancing any cause or initiative in Africa?

Mat Toro SG

why else would losers gang together, talking to each other to insult another on the forum?

Its a clear sign i have won debates against them. I beat you with ippons from start to end.

cheers

LazerLordz SG

watch who you direct your words to.

Mat Toro SG

watch who you debate sir.

LazerLordz SG

You presume I am interested in a debate. You have presumed a lot thus far.

Mat Toro SG

oh so you are not interested in debate.
you just spoke

maurizio13 SG

Hahaha......

Self proclaimed delusional winner.

Mat Toro SG

wasn't that what you fellas were doing? who's delusional now?

maurizio13 SG

You still haven't a clue as to the meaning of self indulge delusions.

Mr. Green

Nevermind.

« Previous Page Next Page »