Dude I have excellent memory. You also brought up crap Clinton said during Lewinsky deal. There is a difference between saying and doing. clinton said a lot of things about saddam but did not invade. Gore would have paid lip service. As to why he chose Lieberman. It was a desperate attempt for people to leave him alone concerning Clinton and his "immorality" with lewinsky.
Excellent memory? You're a certifiable idiot. For one I've never spoken about the Clinton/Lewinsky affair on ET. Link? And secondly I'm quite sure some 25yo moron in Orlando knows what Al Gore would or would not do when the NASDAQ 100 was going from 4800 to 800 or in the face of 9/11. Just like Obama isn't killing civilians in an unannounced/un voted upon foray into Pakistan as we speak. Pretty ironic. Whack jobs like you whining "Bush lied people died" while Obama is starting a de facto war that Congress hasn't even vetted. The war must be pretty important though because NATO rewarded the Loved Obama with a whopping 5000 non-combat troops (3k VERY temporary) to join those 21,000 newly dispatched Americans.....
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2094224&highlight=Lewinsky#post2094224 That is called OWNAGE on the internet. That is exactly the discussion I was refering to. No, it was not a "25 year old certifiable moron" who knew what Bush would do. It was a very perceptive 17 year old in high school who knew Bush's promises to "unite not divide", "bring honor and decency to the white house" and "stop nation building" were total lies and people would regret it. I was also against bush's tax cuts. But most importantly, I was against someone who rode his daddy's coattails his whole life. I watched inbreds laughing because of the attack ad that claimed Gore said he invented the internet (Some reprobates still do). I knew Bush's reign was going to be bad I just did not know it was going to be catastrophically bad. And by the way, my memory is excellent.
ROFLMAO!! You should consider re-thinking your defintion of pwnage. You linked to your own post. "And by the way mr. pabst, one key difference between clinton in 1998 and neocons in 2002 was becuase [sic] there was "something" going on in 1998 namely the Lewinsky thing." Papst followed up your post where he indicates the distraction was to divert attention from impeachment. Pabst does not discuss - in any way shape or form - the Clinton / Lewinsky affair - in any post within the entire thread. Exactly as he stated in this thread. - Spydertrader
I referenced the whole discussion fool. Pabst in that thread referenced many quotes by Clinton officials during 1998 concerning Saddam. And I mentioned it was a wag the dog situation with lewinsky and he acknowledged it. Get lost.
ROFLMAO You just finished up telling the world how you 'owned' Papst because he denied 'discussing' the Clinton / Lewinsky affair. You then link to your own post to somehow prove Papst discussed the Clinton / Lewinsky affair. In addition, Papst's next post, which immediately follows your own, clearly uses the word impeachment. Now, you decide Papst 'acknowledged' your post. Well, Einstein, which is it? Papst 'discussed' the Clinton / Lewinsky affair? or Papst 'acknowledged' your post where you infer Clinton / Lewinsky had an affair. Papst responded with the word Impeachment. Not affair. Directly from Papst's post (immediately following your own). "Well of COURSE it was a distraction from impeachment. " Again, when it comes to pwnage, I encourage you to re-think your definition. - Spydertrader