Thread: Question for Kookie

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Audio: Clinton endorses “torture” in special cases; Update: World opinion opposes “torture”

Based on BS like this? NAh....Bush is the one endorsing it and calling for it and used $5,000 bounties to get his jollies from the experience....he's the CinC...Clinton is running for office and has opinions....but the ACT of torture is under Bush...he does it and condones it and lies to the American people and Congress about it...just like you are here....you fucking fascist NEw World Order fucking waste...

So then you don't think that torture is a reason for removal from office then, right? Or are you saying that some torture is OK but after 'X' amount of torture it is too much?

So Kookie, how many people can a president have tortured (and in Clinton's case, killed and they knew it was going to happen) before it is too much?

Originally Posted by FedUpAmerican

You fucktards are so obsessed with Clinton. But it doesn't change ANYTHING about bushit.

dumdum, TRYING to lead someone to make a point is NOT one of your strong points. You're nowhere near smart enough.

Actually, I accomplished what I wanted to. Kookie is now saying that some torture is OK but after an undetermined amount of torture it isn't OK. Now she can tell us how much torture is allowable.

I didn't post this thread to make a point about Bush, I made it to point out Kookie's hypocrisy. I now have her on record saying some torture is OK. She says it is OK when Clinton does it, and he did do it through rendition, she is just too fucking stupid to find out more - even the ACLU was upset with him about it.

Originally Posted by Dom1

So then you don't think that torture is a reason for removal from office then, right? Or are you saying that some torture is OK but after 'X' amount of torture it is too much?

So Kookie, how many people can a president have tortured (and in Clinton's case, killed and they knew it was going to happen) before it is too much?



Actually, I accomplished what I wanted to. Kookie is now saying that some torture is OK but after an undetermined amount of torture it isn't OK. Now she can tell us how much torture is allowable.

I didn't post this thread to make a point about Bush, I made it to point out Kookie's hypocrisy. I now have her on record saying some torture is OK. She says it is OK when Clinton does it, and he did do it through rendition, she is just too fucking stupid to find out more - even the ACLU was upset with him about it.

We have Bush on tape saying "Read my Lips, no new Taxes" and he lied through his teeth...and junior saying he would exhaust all possibilties in Iraq and he lied through his teeth..now, you SOB....we can impeach bush, right?

You are one stupid fascist pig who is so frigging ignorant on a constitution you HATE....man....get off welfare, join the forces, and get your ass kicked in Iraq.

Originally Posted by Still Dizzy

Yes ALL Presidents should be charged...........Well except Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton.

If the Republican congress had brought up acts of Clinton torturing I would have investigated and probably rebuked him for it.

Why didn't the dickless Republican Congrees bring this to our attention when it was RELEVANT?

Accusations of what a bunch of past presidents did is unimportant today to me, but if a fucktard like you wants to go prosecute Clinton - go ahead.

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

We have Bush on tape saying "Read my Lips, no new Taxes" and he lied through his teeth...and junior saying he would exhaust all possibilties in Iraq and he lied through his teeth..now, you SOB....we can impeach bush, right?

You are one stupid fascist pig who is so frigging ignorant on a constitution you HATE....man....get off welfare, join the forces, and get your ass kicked in Iraq.

BAHAHAHAHAHAH....BUSTED.

AHJHJHHHHGHGHHH

fuckin finally........THANKYOU GOD.......the cunt dissappeared

I NEED TO THANK YOU COOKIE.........JUST YOU....all by yourself........MAKE MY POINTS ABOUT THE INTERNET GAY MAFIA GROUPS OF PUSSYWHIPPERS WHO ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE NEW WORLD ORDER

even more so than being banned from all those other internet sites by FEMINIST GAY SUPPORTERS :-I

Makow - The 'Quiet War' Against Humanity The Lulling Before the Culling

" DIVERSION THE PRIMARY STRATEGY"

The document speaks of "gaining control of the public" by keeping them "undisciplined, ignorant, confused, disorganized and distracted."

" Keep the public diverted away from "the real social issues and captivated by matters of no importance." "Sabotage their mental activities" by a "constant barrage of sex, violence and wars in the media" i.e. "mental and emotional rape."

Give them "junk food for thought" and deprive them of what they really need," especially a sound education. "Keep the public entertainment below the sixth-grade level."

"Work: Keep the public busy, busy, busy with no time to think; back on the farm with the other animals."

"Destroy the faith of the American people in each other."

The general rule: "there is profit in confusion; the more confusion, the more profit. Therefore the best approach is to create problems and then offer solutions."

"THE WELFARE STATE AS STRATEGIC WEAPON"

The public wants the government to "perpetuate their dependency role of childhood. Simply put, they want a human god to eliminate all risk from their life, pat them on the head, kiss their bruises, put a chicken on every dinner table...tuck them in and tell them everything will be alright...."

This "human god" is the politician who promises the world and delivers nothing. This public behavior is "surrender born of fear, laziness, and expediency. It is the basis of the welfare state as a strategic weapon, useful against a disgusting public."

The public's lack of resistance is a sign that it "is ripe for surrender and is consenting to enslavement and legal encroachment. A good ...indicator of harvest time is the number of public citizens who pay income tax despite an obvious lack of reciprocal or honest service from the government."

EXAMPLES OF SILENT WEAPONS

Some may call this document yet another forgery. However, people who are conscious can see this blueprint already has been executed.

The promotion of homosexuality under the guise of "tolerance" and "equality" is an example of the silent weapon.

The equation of homosexual marriage with heterosexual marriage is a brazen denial of the /uniqueness/ of heterosexuality. While they blather about the sanctity of human rights, they viciously attack the health and happiness of 97% of the population.

The difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality is one word: /children./ Homosexuals do not have biological children. Becoming parents is an essential step in heterosexual development. This requires that we form a /permanent bond/ that is /unique/ to us. (See "Relearning Heterosexual Love" savethemales.ca - Relearning Heterosexual Love)

Homosexuals could have a special class of marriage with all the same rights and responsibilities. But they are used to confuse the majority so we don't form a bond and suffer arrested development. (See "Canada Redefines Marriage" savethemales.ca - Canada Redefines Marriage )

Feminism is another example. By denying healthy natural heterosexual roles, women usurp the place of men as providers and have fewer or no children, often as single parents dependent on government. Men become redundant or "wives."

OTHER SILENT WEAPONS

The mass media and education are used to mislead, manipulate, distract and deform. "Mental and emotional rape," they call it. While we have material plenty, our minds and souls are starved for truth. For Those Who Care About Our Future

We are conditioned to think about trivia or evade reality altogether. No coverage or debate is given to the insidious progress of world government and the erosion of national independence.

Since no meaningful nationhood or democracy is foreseen, the young are not taught history or civic virtues. Sex is promoted as a lifelong obsession. Pornography is rampant. We are not supposed to have mature concerns, such as the sort of world our children will inherit.

SO THANKS CUNT.........lay off the meth bitch.


CHECK MATE

Originally Posted by Cookie Parker

We have Bush on tape saying "Read my Lips, no new Taxes" and he lied through his teeth...and junior saying he would exhaust all possibilties in Iraq and he lied through his teeth..now, you SOB....we can impeach bush, right?

You are one stupid fascist pig who is so frigging ignorant on a constitution you HATE....man....get off welfare, join the forces, and get your ass kicked in Iraq.

First, George HW Bush had to raise the taxes and it was the right thing to do at the time . . . and it cost him the election, so you should be damn happy he did raise the taxes since it got Clinton the White House.

Secondly, what does this have to do with the topic Kookie? Are you changing the topic Kookie? Isn't that what you accuse everyone else of doing?

What does this have to do with you saying it is OK for Clinton to condone torture but bad for Bush to?

Seems you should polish up on the Constitution Kookie. You think it is OK for a Democratic president to condone torture and bad for a Republican to do the same. You think it is OK for a Democratic president to OK warrantless searches, but impeachable if a Republican does it.

I never said condoning torture was a reason to remove a president from office Kookie, YOU did. Of course, you think some torture is OK, as long us you like the guy OKing the torture.

Why the hypocrisy Kookie?

Originally Posted by toxic

If the Republican congress had brought up acts of Clinton torturing I would have investigated and probably rebuked him for it.

Why didn't the dickless Republican Congrees bring this to our attention when it was RELEVANT?

Accusations of what a bunch of past presidents did is unimportant today to me, but if a fucktard like you wants to go prosecute Clinton - go ahead.

The ACLU tried to bring it to your attention . . . but you weren't paying attention.

The foreign press tried to bring it to your attention . . . but weren't paying attention.

I don't want to prosecute Clinton for this, I merely want to point out hypocrisy in people like you and Kookie who think it is OK to torture someone, you just want to make sure it is a Democrat who is OKing the torture. See, that is exactly what you are saying.

That makes you frauds and it means that torture really isn't a big issue to you, it is just something else to be partisan about. See, if you were really against torture then you woul dhave been jsut as mad then. You would be willing to say that anyone who condoned that torture should have been out of office.

So, in summation, it seems that a few lefties don't really have a problem with torture, just who is condoning it.

Wouldn't that make them frauds?

Originally Posted by Dom1

So then you don't think that torture is a reason for removal from office then, right? Or are you saying that some torture is OK but after 'X' amount of torture it is too much?

So Kookie, how many people can a president have tortured (and in Clinton's case, killed and they knew it was going to happen) before it is too much?



Actually, I accomplished what I wanted to. Kookie is now saying that some torture is OK but after an undetermined amount of torture it isn't OK. Now she can tell us how much torture is allowable.

I didn't post this thread to make a point about Bush, I made it to point out Kookie's hypocrisy. I now have her on record saying some torture is OK. She says it is OK when Clinton does it, and he did do it through rendition, she is just too fucking stupid to find out more - even the ACLU was upset with him about it.

Your strawman arguments are not only predictable at this venture, they are tiresome and tedious and come from a mind incapable of reading comprehension.

Bush is the president and it is under HIS direction that the US tortures....Clinton made a political campaign speech, but is NOT in a power to control any direction in the US to or not to torture...apples and oranges...look at Swift Boat...all lies and all found to be lies..should Bush be impeached like Bill was for lying? Aren't poltical ads supposed to be truths, taking your stand here on Clinton and her political campaign. BAsed upon your logic, Bush should be impeached because of the political ads on Swift Boat which were all lies...

Originally Posted by Dom1

Wouldn't that make them frauds?

BINGO!!!!!