Fucking "lol Clinton's worse" thread hijacks

[Stormin]

Wow. wong is making good points and everyone is ignoring him. It is like politics is some religion or something -_-

[Nathan F]

WHY THE FUCK NOT?

This is like saying that you can't point out the shortcomings of Ted Bundy without talking about other serial killers too. How is it relevant in any way?

Because, assuming that Bush screwed it up, then so did Clinton

And that is relevant to Bush screwing it up ... how? If I say "hey fuckup, you just smashed into the back of my car", do you get out and say "oh yeah? Well my next-door neighbour did that too, so there!"

False analogy fallacy. It isn't like that in any way. We're talking about the *same* tragedy. If both have the chance to stop it, then you can't say that one is better or worse than the other. If, say, i saw a car was about to run over a person, and another peorson saw that it was probably going to happen, but neither did anything, then we are *both* equally responsible for it happening. However, it always comes down to the final blame going to those who were driving the car.

[Darth Wong]

False analogy fallacy. It isn't like that in any way. We're talking about the *same* tragedy.

Wrong, because Clinton wasn't in power for nearly 2 years at the time this tragedy took place.

If both have the chance to stop it, then you can't say that one is better or worse than the other.

To say that Clinton or Bush had an equal chance of stopping 9/11 is absolutely idiotic. One of them was nearly halfway into his term as president at the time, and the other was nearly two years absent from the job. Moreover, Richard Clarke made it perfectly clear that while Clinton may not have had any military sense, he at least knew to treat Al-Quaeda as a serious threat, while Bush did not. The Al-Quaeda threat was growing, but Bush did not take it seriously even when the head of the CIA was in his office every morning telling him that Al-Quaeda was planning attacks on the US. How does this negligence translate in any way to Clinton, particularly when Clinton did try to take out Bin Laden? He failed, and he obviously had no military sense, but that does not change the fact that Clinton and Bush cannot be equated on this score. Bush treated Al-Quaeda as a back-burner issue.

If, say, i saw a car was about to run over a person, and another peorson saw that it was probably going to happen, but neither did anything, then we are *both* equally responsible for it happening.

Now THAT's a false analogy, since the "second person" in this case last saw that particular bad driver two years ago and was in no position to do anything at the time of the accident, while you were.

However, it always comes down to the final blame going to those who were driving the car.

Blaming Al-Quaeda for its own direct actions is a tautology and an obvious evasion from the point.

[haas mark]

I have a quick question..

Since Nathan F obviously doesn't like Clinton, would this be a guilt by association fallacy (Clinton was president, Bush is president, therefore they are both at fault)? Or maybe a poisoning the well fallacy?

Nathan F - Why is Clinton at fault when he was not in office at the time of the event?

[Patrick Degan]

I have a quick question..

Nathan F - Why is Clinton at fault when he was not in office at the time of the event?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he's the Evil Bill Clinton Monster™. Such is the influence of his malign power even when out of office past the end of his term that he can cause St. Bush and his people to ignore the Hart-Rudman White Paper on counterterrorism, ignore eight months of warnings from the FBI, CIA, MI6, the Mossad, French, German, Russian, and Egyptian intelligence that al-Qaeda was gearing up for a Big Event, and cause St. Bush to do nothing to bring the Air Force out of stand-down condition so that it takes eighty fucking minutes to scramble fighters to knock down one out of four hijacked planes.

That's why.

[haas mark]

I have a quick question..

Nathan F - Why is Clinton at fault when he was not in office at the time of the event?

Isn't it obvious? It's because he's the Evil Bill Clinton Monster?. Such is the influence of his malign power even when out of office past the end of his term that he can cause St. Bush and his people to ignore the Hart-Rudman White Paper on counterterrorism, ignore eight months of warnings from the FBI, CIA, MI6, the Mossad, French, German, Russian, and Egyptian intelligence that al-Qaeda was gearing up for a Big Event, and cause St. Bush to do nothing to bring the Air Force out of stand-down condition so that it takes eighty fucking minutes to scramble fighters to knock down one out of four hijacked planes.

That's why.

Oh, okay, so his sexual impropriety three years prior led to 9/11. Ok. Thanks for the enlightenment.