fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
KharmaDog said:
I don't take your word for anything, especially when you don't cite examples that make your point.
To quote Tom Sawyer (again): "Just you sayin' it don't make it so."
Funny how it's always a Democrat that says stuff like this...
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
I don't take your word for anything, especially when you don't cite examples that make your point.
To quote Tom Sawyer (again): "Just you sayin' it don't make it so."
fossten said:
Well, then keep your head in the sand. That's your choice, what do I care if you like to sound like an idiot.
If you can't see the bias of that site then you are a simpletone not worth conversing with.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Stale, but if the shoe fits...:
The Great Triangulator Strikes Again
Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that former President Bill Clinton has played an instrumental role in advising top officials from the United Arab Emirates on how to assuage growing US concerns over the Dubai ports deal. Earlier this week, Mr. Clinton called the UAE a “good ally to America,” and offered his recommendation to Dubai leaders that they propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation.
This comes as no surprise. After all, Mr. Clinton is no stranger to UAE bigwigs (nor their bank accounts). Not only has the sheikdom contributed to Clinton’s own presidential library, it opened its wallet rather wide on repeated occasions for the "Man from Hope," reportedly paying him over a half million dollars for two speeches he delivered in Dubai in 2002 and 2005.
The plot thickens. As Bob Novak writes in Townhall today, Mr. Clinton was until recently, pushing for his former press secretary and close friend, Joe Lockhart to be hired by the UAE to defend the controversial ports deal. Lockhart was gunning for the big bucks and hoped his former boss could help him land a gig as Washington’s spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
(An interesting aside: According to Novak, “Lockhart did not flatly deny to me that Clinton had made a pitch for him, but instead said he did not know whether the former president was involved.” But according to Novak, “UAE sources, contending that Lockhart priced himself out of the market, asserted there was no question but that Clinton had intervened on his behalf and added it was not possible that Lockhart had not known about his former chief's intervention".)
Hillary, on the other hand, has been blowing her whistle at the head of the anti-Dubai pandering parade. Mrs. Clinton has vociferously positioned herself as a vocal opponent to the ports deal. The junior senator from New York with eyes on the Oval Office prize said on her website, "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments.” She is also working on legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments. And at a speech in Manhattan this past weekend, Hillary called the Dubai deal "emblematic of a larger problem" of ceding "some of our fiscal sovereignty."
This is where the infamous Clinton triangulation begins.
As the Financial Times reports, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman has just gone on record saying that the former president supports Hillary’s position against the ports deal. And that “ideally,” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.
What’s that you say?
How does Bill Clinton support Hillary’s crystal-clear position against the Dubai ports deal, while simultaneously offering strategic counsel and advice (and high-priced personnel) to officials from Dubai who want the deal to go through?
This is business as usual for the Clintons. Triangulation 101. When you put Bill and Hillary together, what you’re left with is a frighteningly contradictory and confusing political portrait. Something Salvador Dali might have rendered. And if Bill and Hillary ever get the chance to set up shop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again, this is what it’ll be like—over and over again.
No one will understand what they’re really doing and what they’re really saying.
Posted by svarga on Thursday, March 02 @ 14:29:40 EST (40 reads)
http://www.moneypolitics.com/
The Great Triangulator Strikes Again
Yesterday, the Financial Times reported that former President Bill Clinton has played an instrumental role in advising top officials from the United Arab Emirates on how to assuage growing US concerns over the Dubai ports deal. Earlier this week, Mr. Clinton called the UAE a “good ally to America,” and offered his recommendation to Dubai leaders that they propose a 45-day delay to allow for an intensive investigation.
This comes as no surprise. After all, Mr. Clinton is no stranger to UAE bigwigs (nor their bank accounts). Not only has the sheikdom contributed to Clinton’s own presidential library, it opened its wallet rather wide on repeated occasions for the "Man from Hope," reportedly paying him over a half million dollars for two speeches he delivered in Dubai in 2002 and 2005.
The plot thickens. As Bob Novak writes in Townhall today, Mr. Clinton was until recently, pushing for his former press secretary and close friend, Joe Lockhart to be hired by the UAE to defend the controversial ports deal. Lockhart was gunning for the big bucks and hoped his former boss could help him land a gig as Washington’s spokesman for the UAE-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
(An interesting aside: According to Novak, “Lockhart did not flatly deny to me that Clinton had made a pitch for him, but instead said he did not know whether the former president was involved.” But according to Novak, “UAE sources, contending that Lockhart priced himself out of the market, asserted there was no question but that Clinton had intervened on his behalf and added it was not possible that Lockhart had not known about his former chief's intervention".)
Hillary, on the other hand, has been blowing her whistle at the head of the anti-Dubai pandering parade. Mrs. Clinton has vociferously positioned herself as a vocal opponent to the ports deal. The junior senator from New York with eyes on the Oval Office prize said on her website, "Our port security is too important to place in the hands of foreign governments.” She is also working on legislation that will prohibit the sale of ports to foreign governments. And at a speech in Manhattan this past weekend, Hillary called the Dubai deal "emblematic of a larger problem" of ceding "some of our fiscal sovereignty."
This is where the infamous Clinton triangulation begins.
As the Financial Times reports, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman has just gone on record saying that the former president supports Hillary’s position against the ports deal. And that “ideally,” state-owned companies would not own US port operations.
What’s that you say?
How does Bill Clinton support Hillary’s crystal-clear position against the Dubai ports deal, while simultaneously offering strategic counsel and advice (and high-priced personnel) to officials from Dubai who want the deal to go through?
This is business as usual for the Clintons. Triangulation 101. When you put Bill and Hillary together, what you’re left with is a frighteningly contradictory and confusing political portrait. Something Salvador Dali might have rendered. And if Bill and Hillary ever get the chance to set up shop at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue again, this is what it’ll be like—over and over again.
No one will understand what they’re really doing and what they’re really saying.
Posted by svarga on Thursday, March 02 @ 14:29:40 EST (40 reads)
http://www.moneypolitics.com/
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
KharmaDog said:
What's a simpletone? Is that the opposite of a complex tone? :bowrofl:
Typical mindless liberal rhetoric. You have no way to back up your statements, so you resorted to name calling. And it only took you THREE WHOLE POSTS! :bowrofl:
fossten said:
Excellent. Attacking a typo. Excellent strategy to try and look like an intelligent person. Actually it just makes you look like a petty loser.
Good luck with that.
fossten said:
I'm not a liberal zippy. If you read my posts you would have figured that out. But maybe it's safer to just st and assume tht you know what everyone is thinking and what they believe. It saves you from having to do much thinking yourself.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
KharmaDog said:
Interesting. You take offense that I criticized your poor spelling of a word directed at me as an insult. What does that make you look like? A hypocrite? A pot calling the kettle black? A double-standard bearer? A person who dishes out but cannot take same? A petty loser?
We'll let the admin be the judge. Or haven't you read the rules yet?
DixieRambler
Active LVC Member
KharmaDog said:
You again! I think I'll go get another cold beverage because......you bore me!
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
stang99x said:
I know you're the new right wing cohort, but stay out of it; they'll handle the tension themselves. Commie...Are we in the cold war again?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:I know you're the new right wing cohort, but stay out of it; they'll handle the tension themselves. Commie...Are we in the cold war again?
LOL I know what you're trying to say, Deville, but don't forget Cuba, NK, China, and Vietnam, right?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Are you saying my recruiting efforts are paying off?
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
Ya, after all, they are only at the 'honeymoon' stage.95DevilleNS said:
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Bah, those are commie 'light' countries, Atkins communism, diet Bolsheviks the margarine of Marxism if you will.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
MonsterMark said:Are you saying my recruiting efforts are paying off?
Unfortunately, yes...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Excuse me???
Cuba, Vietnam and NK have populations that are starving b/c of the dictatorship's iron grip and poor economic policies. China still executes political prisoners for dissenting and they even got Google to censor their own citizens from posting free speech.
Commie light my a$$.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
Exactly, they aren't really communist but more on the likes of a dictatorship. In true communist ideals (even though it will never work) citizens are treated equally and fairly. Ever watch the Smufs as a child; especially the first season episodes? That was true communism. Smurfs = Communist, scary huh?
Papa Smurf: Long beard like Marx, all knowing all caring father figure. Do you think it was a coincidence we wore red?
Brainy Smurf: Outcast, liked to think for himself, often hated, never really fit in because his views didn't flow with the rest of the community. Wore glasses identical to Leon Trotsky.
Vanity Smurf: Stereotypical homosexual, was disliked by the rest for being different and for being selfish.
Lazy Smurf: Was disliked because he was lazy and didn't contribute to the community.
Handy Smurf: The most valuable smurf around yet he was never awarded for his above average skills and contributions but was happy to do so.
All other smurfs: They did different jobs and received equal shares.
Gargamel: Stereotypical Jewish archtype, big nose, greedy and his his single goal in life was trying to turn the smurfs into gold for personal gain.
Azrael: Gargamels cohort, fatcat a.k.a. America... Evil incarnate.
bufordtpisser
Dedicated LVC Member
I usually stay out of the political issues..................
But damn Deville, you are quoting things from SouthPark and the Smurfs. No damn wonder the Dumbocrats are in so much trouble, they count people like you as members.
"That's all Folks"
95DevilleNS said:Exactly, they aren't really communist but more on the likes of a dictatorship. In true communist ideals (even though it will never work) citizens are treated equally and fairly. Ever watch the Smufs as a child; especially the first season episodes? That was true communism. Smurfs = Communist, scary huh?
Papa Smurf: Long beard like Marx, all knowing all caring father figure. Do you think it was a coincidence we wore red?
Brainy Smurf: Outcast, liked to think for himself, often hated, never really fit in because his views didn't flow with the rest of the community. Wore glasses identical to Leon Trotsky.
Vanity Smurf: Stereotypical homosexual, was disliked by the rest for being different and for being selfish.
Lazy Smurf: Was disliked because he was lazy and didn't contribute to the community.
Handy Smurf: The most valuable smurf around yet he was never awarded for his above average skills and contributions but was happy to do so.
All other smurfs: They did different jobs and received equal shares.
Gargamel: Stereotypical Jewish archtype, big nose, greedy and his his single goal in life was trying to turn the smurfs into gold for personal gain.
Azrael: Gargamels cohort, fatcat a.k.a. America... Evil incarnate.
But damn Deville, you are quoting things from SouthPark and the Smurfs. No damn wonder the Dumbocrats are in so much trouble, they count people like you as members.
"That's all Folks"
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
bufordtpisser said:
ROTFLMAO
Buford, that was PRICELESS! :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:
YOU TOTALLY RE-AFFIRMED THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD.
*owned* *owned* *owned* *owned*
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
bufordtpisser said:
No wonder the Republicans so often are likened to a bunch of pompous a$$holes. They have people like you that are too ignorant and arrogant to see light humor for what it is. Oh well.
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
See, I expected more from you... Even though I disagree with you often I never considered you to be a 'stupid' person. But with a comment like that, I gues it's safe to say 'birds of a feather flock together' even if it is cliche.
(See my response to Buford incase that flew over your head)
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Isn't it time for South Park reruns to start? Why are you still typing?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:Isn't it time for South Park reruns to start? Why are you still typing?
"Hi, my names Fossten, Fossten Gump..... Mama says they was magic shoes. They could take me anywhere. "
+ = x2
bufordtpisser
Dedicated LVC Member
Thats me......................
A pompous :q:q:q:q:q:q:q. But then again I admit my faults. I am pompous, but I am very good at everything that I do in life. What you call arrogance, I call self confidence. And I can go through life without quoting cartoons.
You should go have a conversation with your talking piece of $hit. Or better yet, go find Smurfette because "You are in more dire need of a bluejob than any man in history".
Deeba deeba deeba, Thats all folks.
95DevilleNS said:
A pompous :q:q:q:q:q:q:q. But then again I admit my faults. I am pompous, but I am very good at everything that I do in life. What you call arrogance, I call self confidence. And I can go through life without quoting cartoons.
You should go have a conversation with your talking piece of $hit. Or better yet, go find Smurfette because "You are in more dire need of a bluejob than any man in history".
Deeba deeba deeba, Thats all folks.