ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
A Bigger Bang Tour 2006

Giants Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ - 27th September 2006
© SweetVirginia
[ ROCKSOFF.ORG ] [ IORR NEWS ] [ SETLISTS 1962-2006 ] [ FORO EN ESPAÑOL ] [ BIT TORRENT TRACKER ] [ BIT TORRENT HELP ] [ BIRTHDAY'S LIST ] [ MICK JAGGER ] [ KEITHFUCIUS ] [ CHARLIE WATTS ] [ RONNIE WOOD ] [ BRIAN JONES ] [ MICK TAYLOR ] [ BILL WYMAN ] [ IAN "STU" STEWART ] [ NICKY HOPKINS ] [ MERRY CLAYTON ] [ IAN 'MAC' McLAGAN ] [ LINKS ] [ PHOTOS ] [ JIMI HENDRIX ] [ TEMPLE ] [GUESTBOOK ] [ ADMIN ]
CHAT ROOM aka The Fun HOUSE Rest rooms last days
ROCKS OFF - The Rolling Stones Message Board
Register | Update Profile | F.A.Q. | Admin Control Panel

Topic: Bubba Bitch Slaps Mike Wallace's Punk Kid (nsc) Return to archive Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
24th September 2006 11:18 PM
Brainbell Jangler http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060925/ap_on_re_us/clinton_fox_news
24th September 2006 11:38 PM
telecaster Wrong!

Clinton caught in massive lie on audio tape!!

Clinton himself says he let Bin Laden escape

Can the man EVER tell the truth?

www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml?s=tn
24th September 2006 11:42 PM
telecaster Why would Clinton say that to Chris Wallace while a couple of years ago he said on tape at the above link that we all can listen to that he let Bin Laden go because "we had no basis to hold him"

What is wrong in Clinton's brain that he simply has to lie all the time?



24th September 2006 11:55 PM
Brainbell Jangler Nice try, Tele. Clinton stated, truthfully, that he tried to kill bin Laden after the 1998 African embassy attacks. He also stated, again truthfully, that there was no legal basis for extraditing bin Laden from Sudan in 1996. Being named as an "unindicted co-conspirator" is not a basis for extradition as it does not constitute being charged with a crime. Just ask unindicted co-conspirator Richard Nixon.



One more thing: BOYCOTT RUTH'S CHRIS STEAKHOUSE!
[Edited by Brainbell Jangler]
25th September 2006 12:11 AM
sirmoonie By all accounts - all accounts - George Walker Bush III did absolutely nothing to address terrorism and/or bin Laden - which is why he and the Bush Geeks now say bin Laden doesn't matter. Jesus Christ, howe demented can you get? Talk about saying anything. They would rather bin Laden continue to live than admit howe wrong they are.

From election day on, George Walker Bush got busy doing whatever the fuck it is idiots do all day, picking their feet, throwing purple socks around the bathroom, who the hell knows what those guys do all day.

He did piss fuck all in response to the August 2001 memo, that he presumably never even read. Probably didn't even know who bin Laden was until 9/11 - meanwhile, the terrorists all enter the country, scope the airports, scope the targets, check the flights, get the money wired, fly around the country, meet in Vegas, rent hotels and apartments, rent cars, send hundreds of e-mails, talk on cell phones, buy the one way tickets to hijack the planes, etc. - all under the watch of George Walker Bush III.

That 9/11 video of George Walker Bush III pondering for 7 fucking minutes what the phrase "America is under attack" means should be mandatory viewing for any clinician trying to diagnose retardation - thats DSM IV stuff right there - what part didn't you get George Walker Bush III? America? Under? Attack? Too many words? No one in the entire country reacted that fucking lame - worst man for the job, wrong time.

Here it is - watch the commander-in-chief of the United States military trying to read a book about goats while he knows crazed Islamic psychos are in the process of killing Americans. Cuidado - this is NOT for the weak of stomach.

25th September 2006 12:32 AM
Taptrick
I don't care what your point-of-view of the guy is his personality shifted in a second. He became defensive, agressive, and physically intimidating. He was a breathing defense mechanism.

25th September 2006 12:44 AM
sirmoonie
quote:
Taptrick wrote:

I don't care what your point-of-view of the guy is his personality shifted in a second. He became defensive, agressive, and physically intimidating. He was a breathing defense mechanism.




I saw those words on Drudge. Damn, we needed a defensive, agressive, physically intimidating guy like that on September 11, 2001. Hell, we need him now - George Walker Bush III throws Clinton, of all fucking people, into bold relief.

And hey, check out who we do have now. Check this, bleed. Check it. This is funny in a sickening kind of way.

25th September 2006 12:55 AM
Brainbell Jangler
quote:
Taptrick wrote:

I don't care what your point-of-view of the guy is his personality shifted in a second. He became defensive, agressive, and physically intimidating. He was a breathing defense mechanism.




I, too, prefer "shifted in a second" to "froze like a deer in the headlights for seven minutes."
25th September 2006 02:28 AM
sirmoonie Interesting.

Here's as much as I could find. Some Bush Geek could fine more, and then not post it I'm sure.

The man was nothing if the not most articulate, on his feet, bastard that ever lived. Unlike George Walker Bush III, he was conservative as hell too, which is why I've grown to think he had it going.

Everything he said in this deal checks up with 9/11 Report and Clarke book - both of which I have read several times. For now, the Clarke book has most of what the U.S. government was doing to get bin Laden - which, of course, Bush Geeks think isn't that big a deal.

25th September 2006 03:20 AM
prism According to the 9/11 Commission Report the Bush Administration was warned over 40 times that Bin Laden would strike the U.S. Condoleeza Rice was reportedly more interested in the Soviet Union because that was her area of expertise in college. The memo of August 6, 2001 on the President's desk at his Texas vacation home (by the way, the Washington Post said Bush was on vacation 42% of the first eight months of his term) warned the president that Bin Laden was determined to hi-jack airplanes and bomb New York and Washington. The president could have prevented it by picking up the phone and telling the FAA to step up security and screen for knives. Apparently he said he didn't read the memo. What about all the other memos? The Bush administration didn't want to focus on "Clinton projects" such as Bin Laden. I remember when Clinton sent missiles at Bin Laden's camp missing him by hours and the Republican congress laughed at him and said that Clinton's going after a non-threat like Bin Laden was only an attempt at distracting the public from the Monica Lewinsky affair which evidently was the most important issue to the Republican congress. Richard Clarke served many years under both Republican and Democrat administrations but he was laughed out of his job by the Bush White House for being a pest, constantly suggesting to Condoleeza that Bin Laden was a threat. The Bush people had more important things on their minds like Communist China, from whom Bush has now borrowed billions in order to pay for the Iraq war and his tax cuts for the wealthy. And don't ask me "Why do you hate America?" I don't hate America. I hate George W. Bush and his gang of thugs. O.K., maybe hate is too strong a word. I have compassion. Time to go listen to Sweet Neo-Con. But sometimes I wonder if Bush intentionally failed to prevent the hi-jackings because he figured that an airplane hi-jacking by an Arab would be a good excuse to invade Iraq. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others did report that Bush and Cheney were intent on invading Iraq from the first day they were in office.
25th September 2006 05:09 AM
Jumping Jack They are both useless, self-serving egomaniacs, as are the majority of congressmen who are more interested in taking care of their financial backers than serving the public. Arguing who is less useless is pointless.

Both are shamefully defensive about their piss poor record of "public" service.
25th September 2006 06:36 AM
corgi37 But man, Slick Willie was a cool bastard. Bush was only good for defending America from Vietnam - in the Deep South! Getting drunk with Aussies, snorting a bit of Columbia's finest, doing dodgy oil deals with our "friends" the Saudi's, frying every prick in the Texas prison system, and having 2 slutty, drunken daughters.

Fuck! I dont know who i like anymore! Maybe i DO like Bush? hahaha.

Stupid Yanks.


P.S. Uncle Corgi luv's ya's!
25th September 2006 06:51 AM
lotsajizz tele is a Bush geek


25th September 2006 07:18 AM
glencar
quote:
prism wrote:
The president could have prevented it by picking up the phone and telling the FAA to step up security and screen for knives. Apparently he said he didn't read the memo.

Apparently you never read the memo about how the FAA is not and NEVER WAS responsible for that aspect of airline security.

I haven't seen the whole exchange yet(I did tape it though) but the bits I've seen show the same old Clinton, the one we've never missed having around. The same old dishonesty, the same old faked anger, the same old phoniness.
25th September 2006 07:28 AM
glencar The irony is that he attacked evil Rupert Murdoch's FOX News yet Rupe's given thousands to Hilly's reelection campaign.
25th September 2006 07:33 AM
playguitar
The only reason to invade Iraq was because Saddam had a habit of dumping oil on the market. Remember when it was 9 bucks a barrel. Now the Saudi/Bush[Exxon] cartel controls it. Hence 65.00 bucks a barrel. Wake up and smell the coffee, people......
25th September 2006 07:36 AM
glencar I'm guessing that the Bush administration doesn't have the logistical capabilities to plan some sort of cartel.
25th September 2006 07:49 AM
playguitar

Hi Glencar,

I'm just guessing that the Bush administration is owned by the Oil Cartel.

Hey, on a different note, I will be seeing my 2nd Stones concert in 1 week. I'm going to giants on Wed. Life is Good!
25th September 2006 07:58 AM
glencar Enjoy the show!
25th September 2006 08:17 AM
Taptrick
Again - prefer whoever you like. I don't know about Drudge either. I saw it on youtube. It reminded me of kids I have in offender process groups reacting when asked a seemingly easy question. I see a lot of Bush emotion and a lot of anti Bush emotion here. I was commenting on the topic of the thread. Nothing else.

25th September 2006 09:51 AM
Maxlugar This is getting psychotic from the anti-Bush Bobo's. Bill Clinton did absolutely NOTHING in the face of multiple embassy bombings, the USS Cole and Kobar Towers. He refused Bin Laden when given the chance and it was his biggest mistake (In his own words!). He pulled troops from Somalia in one of the most embarrassing displays of weakness of his administration. Weaknesses that Bin Laden himself cites as proof the U.S. is not up to his challenge. Under his "leadership", Iraq felt it could comfortably skirt over a dozen UN resolutions and eventually kick weapons inspectors out. When he bombed Iraq he was kind enough to telegraph his punches so the buildings were empty and just a few cleaning ladies would get killed.

Moreover, this total disgrace of a president didn't even visit the bombed out World Trade Center in '94 and instead of rallying the country to fight these extremists, he told us all not to "overreact". Only when he spunked his Bubba juice on a cheap dress, and got caught, did he decide to look tough and throw a few missiles around and nail a milk factory and some sleeping camels.

But Oh Bush didn't run out of the classroom screaming like a crazy man the second he learned of 9/11!!!! Please.

No attacks on US soil since 9/11. Success speaks for itself, Mo-Mo's.
25th September 2006 09:57 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:

I saw those words on Drudge. Damn, we needed a defensive, agressive, physically intimidating guy like that on September 11, 2001. Hell, we need him now - George Walker Bush III throws Clinton, of all fucking people, into bold relief.




I could understand the "Bush Geeks" blind defense of their man...he's a sitting president...but I don't get this blind defense of Mr. Clinton...he's been out of office for a while...are heroes that hard to find these days?...Haven't you been watching what Clooney has been saying?
[Edited by Fiji Joe]
25th September 2006 10:21 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:
sirmoonie wrote:
Interesting.

The man was nothing if the not most articulate, on his feet, bastard that ever lived. Unlike George Walker Bush III, he was conservative as hell too, which is why I've grown to think he had it going.

Everything he said in this deal checks up with 9/11 Report and Clarke book - both of which I have read several times. For now, the Clarke book has most of what the U.S. government was doing to get bin Laden - which, of course, Bush Geeks think isn't that big a deal.




Boy...you sure can suck a dick
25th September 2006 10:26 AM
rasputin56 I love how the nutjobs pass the Cole thing off on Bubba.

1. It occurred in 10/00, you know, a month before the election. Imagine how psycho the republitards would've gone over that if he had done something, anything?

2. It was not definitively shown to have been the work of bin Laden and AQ until 2/01, you know, when Dubya was getting ready for another vacation.

Are they so desperate to make their Dear Leader look good that they have to keep up the attack on the Big Dawg? He hasn't been president for quite awhile now, you know.

Facts remain. When attacked, Clinton at least did something. Bush needed 9/11 before he did anything. And it's been 5 years and bin Laden, supposedly Public Enemy #1, is still on the run (or died from natural causes, if you believe the French).



[Edited by rasputin56]
25th September 2006 10:33 AM
Maxlugar "Facts remain. When attacked, Clinton at least did something."

WTF? Did an anvil just land on your head? I just listed all the things Clinton DIDN'T do anything about. Tell me what he did in response to each of those attacks, please.


"1. It occurred in 10/00, you know, a month before the election. Imagine how psycho the republitards would've gone over that if he had done something, anything?"

Why not? He bombed Afghanistan and Sudan the day of the impeachment vote. That's not beyond him.

[Edited by Maxlugar]
25th September 2006 10:35 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
I love how the nutjobs pass the Cole thing off on Bubba.

1. It occurred in 10/00, you know, a month before the election. Imagine how psycho the republitards would've gone over that if he had done something, anything?

2. It was not definitively shown to have been the work of bin Laden and AQ until 2/01, you know, when Dubya was getting ready for another vacation.

Are they so desperate to make their Dear Leader look good that they have to keep up the attack on the Big Dawg? He hasn't been president for quite awhile now, you know.

Facts remain. When attacked, Clinton at least did something. Bush needed 9/11 before he did anything. And it's been 5 years and bin Laden, supposedly Public Enemy #1, is still on the run (or died from natural causes, if you believe the French).



[Edited by rasputin56]



I'm putting you down on the far left of my chart as a "Dean Doink"...you're not the only one by any means...you have to be careful...you don't wanna be placed in the "Clinton Kid" category...people in that category have trouble lacing their shoes and carrying on conversations at cocktail parties
25th September 2006 10:36 AM
rasputin56 So he did do something?

Did he do something or didn't he, Wile E.?
25th September 2006 10:41 AM
Fiji Joe
quote:
rasputin56 wrote:
So he did do something?

Did he do something or didn't he, Wile E.?



He ordered the fiasco in Somalia...he did that...he proved himself on the wrong side of history in Bosnia...he did those things
25th September 2006 10:43 AM
rasputin56
quote:
Fiji Joe wrote:


I'm putting you down on the far left of my chart as a "Dean Doink"...you're not the only one by any means...you have to be careful...you don't wanna be placed in the "Clinton Kid" category...people in that category have trouble lacing their shoes and carrying on conversations at cocktail parties



K.

25th September 2006 10:43 AM
Joey " ...are heroes that hard to find these days?..."


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Search for information in the wet page, the archives and this board:

PicoSearch
The Rolling Stones World Tour 2005 Rolling Stones Bigger Bang Tour 2005 2006 Rolling Stones Forum - Rolling Stones Message Board - Mick Jagger - Keith Richards - Brian Jones - Charlie Watts - Ian Stewart - Stu - Bill Wyman - Mick Taylor - Ronnie Wood - Ron Wood - Rolling Stones 2005 Tour - Farewell Tour - Rolling Stones: Onstage World Tour A Bigger Bang US Tour

NEW: SEARCH ZONE:
Search for goods, you'll find the impossible collector's item!!!
Enter artist an start searching using "Power Search" (RECOMMENDED)