He also put words in my mouth here:




Quite the hypocrite, eh?
- Feeling Glucky?

It's unbelievable.

To be fair the Mayor of Boston look more like a Nazi than Thomas. The policy of banning a business because of opinions reminds me of how Hitler used the enabling act during the begining of his rule.
- flamminghead

There are three separate mayors that have beef with Chik Fil A, so I might be getting things a little confused, but has the mayor of Boston actually banned them yet? I wasn't aware that he had. I thought he, like the mayor of SF, wrote in a letter that he found Cathy's opinions insulting, and that they shouldn't try to open a restaurant because it will be empty (that the people of Boston wouldn't stand for it). That's decidedly different from banning them. I believe the representatives from Chicago said that Chik Fil A will run into difficulties there only insofar as they are in league with anti-gay organizations, lending creedence to the idea that it isn't entirely to do with Cathy's singular opinions. I think the Mayor of Boston took specific offense to the idea that Chick Fil A was planning on opening a restaurant on the Freedom trail, a stone's throw away from the very courthouse where gay marriage was first legalized in the United States. That indicates that cultural sensitivity might be the biggest issue here in terms of their choice in location. He may just not want them period, though.

Does anyone have a definitive (set of) source(s)?

There are three separate mayors that have beef with Chik Fil A, so I might be getting things a little confused, but has the mayor of Boston actually banned them yet? I wasn't aware that he had. I thought he, like the mayor of SF, wrote in a letter that he found Cathy's opinions insulting, and that they shouldn't try to open a restaurant because it will be empty (that the people of Boston wouldn't stand for it). That's decidedly different from banning them. I believe the representatives from Chicago said that Chik Fil A will run into difficulties there only insofar as they are in league with anti-gay organizations, lending creedence to the idea that it isn't entirely to do with Cathy's singular opinions. I think the Mayor of Boston took specific offense to the idea that Chick Fil A was planning on opening a restaurant on the Freedom trail, a stone's throw away from the very courthouse where gay marriage was first legalized in the United States. That indicates that cultural sensitivity might be the biggest issue here in terms of their choice in location. He may just not want them period, though.

Does anyone have a definitive (set of) source(s)?
- Morris

He said someting like he would make it very difficult for them to open any locations in Boston. Basically implying that he doesn't actually have the power to ban them but there are other ways of denying liscences for businesses.

There are three separate mayors that have beef with Chik Fil A, so I might be getting things a little confused, but has the mayor of Boston actually banned them yet? I wasn't aware that he had. I thought he, like the mayor of SF, wrote in a letter that he found Cathy's opinions insulting, and that they shouldn't try to open a restaurant because it will be empty (that the people of Boston wouldn't stand for it). That's decidedly different from banning them. I believe the representatives from Chicago said that Chik Fil A will run into difficulties there only insofar as they are in league with anti-gay organizations, lending creedence to the idea that it isn't entirely to do with Cathy's singular opinions. I think the Mayor of Boston took specific offense to the idea that Chick Fil A was planning on opening a restaurant on the Freedom trail, a stone's throw away from the very courthouse where gay marriage was first legalized in the United States. That indicates that cultural sensitivity might be the biggest issue here in terms of their choice in location. He may just not want them period, though.

Does anyone have a definitive (set of) source(s)?
- Morris

You're correct... The location seems to be the major issue.

You're correct... The location seems to be the major issue.


- laughs2907

Uhh, I never said that. Typical right wing arrogant retort, making crap up along the way, just like usual.

Just like your claim that Clinton sold them "their nuclear secrets". The article you quote doesn't say anything remotely close to that.

Typical rightwing crap.
- prock

Here is your quote

"I've never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans. That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Game, set, match

You never said anything like that? I call bullsh!t.

Here is your quote

"I've never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans. That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Game, set, match

You never said anything like that? I call bullsh!t.
- bruinsbeer69

He said that he'd never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans, and that it sounds like a pile of crap. He never said "merely by virtue of the fact that I've never heard about this before, it is crap", as your post implied.

For example, if someone was talking about a manned mission to the planet Venus, my thinking they were full of crap would be independent of my never having heard of such a mission.

So game on from my perspective...

Don't forget Clinton also had multiple opportunities to go after Bin Laden, but did not.

And most of Clinton's economic success was seen in his second term, and only came when the Republicans gained control of congress and Newt Gingrich brought in the Contract with America, and all that Clinton had to do was to sign it into law.

He was impeached too right?
- Doppleganger

He was.....for perjury and one of obstruction of justice.

Was that the class and respectability those left wing mental midgets were talking about?


They see things the way the main stream media wants them to see it....people like you and I, who are free thinkers, and question the spoonfeed bullsh!t from the media, are often mocked by the simple sheep who are unwilling the scratch the surface of any topic the government media complex delivers to them

He said that he'd never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans, and that it sounds like a pile of crap. He never said "merely by virtue of the fact that I've never heard about this before, it is crap", as your post implied.

For example, if someone was talking about a manned mission to the planet Venus, my thinking they were full of crap would be independent of my never having heard of such a mission.

So game on from my perspective...
- Morris

Do I need to get you two a room?

He was.....for perjury and one of obstruction of justice.

Was that the class and respectability those left wing mental midgets were talking about?


They see things the way the main stream media wants them to see it....people like you and I, who are free thinkers, and question the spoonfeed bullsh!t from the media, are often mocked by the simple sheep who are unwilling the scratch the surface of any topic the government media complex delivers to them
- bruinsbeer69

One man lied about a handjob from a chubby secretary.

The other lied about the reasons for the invasion of a country that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Clearly, the first man should be mocked, and the second one worshiped.

Do I need to get you two a room?
- bruinsbeer69

haha when someone has the audacity to use the phrase "game, set, match" after a flimsy argument, I just feel like interjecting as an impartial third party.

Here is your quote

"I've never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans. That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Game, set, match

You never said anything like that? I call bullsh!t.
- bruinsbeer69

Why are you bringing up other news networks and Jon Stewart? I posted a screen shot of fox news saying you considered it a legitimate news source. Here's how you responded:


Do you not watch Fox news at all? Because that's what the bolded suggests.

Now, I posted this because of the numerous Fox news articles you've posted in the past, and your continued defense of the station(#1 in the US! woo!)

So which is it, am I assuming something incorrectly, as you pointed out, or are you a liar?

I'm just curious.
- Feeling Glucky?

I have NOT posted Numerous Fox articles, no more than any other news source.

And I bring up Jon Stewart, as most young Americans consider his show a legitimate source of "News". His show gets much better rating than any other cable news show on CNN or MSNBC


http://newsinfo.iu.edu/web/page/normal/4159.html

Why are you asking me if I watch FOX? Did you NOT read my post that you quoted??

It contains this line.

Yes I watch FOX news, but I also watch CNN, MSNBC, Sun News, CBC, CTV and listen to various news/talkradio stations.


Do you think there is a bias in certain media outlets???

I'm not American, so I don't particularly care. But from an outsiders pov, Clinton was really the only president in the last 30 or so years that has had a successful presidency IMO. Reagan, bush times two, all disasters. Obama isn't faring very well either, IMO. He's making every bit of the mess Bush did. Make no mistake though, George W Bush was a total disaster. He made such a mess of your country it could take twenty years to dig yourself out.

In terms of tax cuts and what not, for forty years the US had a steadily improving debt situation. Reagan and the first George Bush wiped out thirty of those forty years of progress. Clinton turned it around, only to have the second bush wipe out his progress, and the other ten years that were left.
- prock

Here is your quote

"I've never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans. That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Game, set, match

You never said anything like that? I call bullsh!t.
- bruinsbeer69

Yes, I never said "I didn't hear it, so it didn't happen", I said I've never heard of it, and I doubt it happened.

Further, the article you linked doesn't even support what you say, so you're the one looking like an idiot right now.

Typical rightwing idiocy. Been spending some time with George Bush and Dan Quayle lately? It's p - o - t - a - t - o. No e.

He said that he'd never heard anything about Clinton giving nuclear secrets to the Koreans, and that it sounds like a pile of crap. He never said "merely by virtue of the fact that I've never heard about this before, it is crap", as your post implied.

For example, if someone was talking about a manned mission to the planet Venus, my thinking they were full of crap would be independent of my never having heard of such a mission.

So game on from my perspective...
- Morris

Pretty straightforward I think. I'm surprised it's beyond his grasp.

I love that the article says nothing of "nuclear secrets".

- Doppleganger

What's your point? The first graph shows the debt rapidly accelerating in the red years, starting to flatten off again during the Clinton years, only to take off again with Bush 2, and taking off even further with Obama.

As a % of GDP, the second even more clearly shows what I was referring to.

Are you trying to argue, or support my statement?

One man lied about a handjob from a chubby secretary.

The other lied about the reasons for the invasion of a country that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Clearly, the first man should be mocked, and the second one worshiped.
- Feeling Glucky?

England thought he had uranium, too. They never found it.

Truth be told, there were a million reasons to knock Saddam Hussien out of power. The first Bush should have done it in 91.

I have zero problem with us removing him from power. Bush lied, kids died, blah blah blah. The left loves their simplistic little quotes.

And unlike the left, I worship nobody. I have my belief set, and I vote for those closest to it.....or in most cases, unfortunately, vote against the person farthest from it.

Yes, I never said "I didn't hear it, so it didn't happen", I said I've never heard of it, and I doubt it happened.

Further, the article you linked doesn't even support what you say, so you're the one looking like an idiot right now.

Typical rightwing idiocy. Been spending some time with George Bush and Dan Quayle lately? It's p - o - t - a - t - o. No e.
- prock

"That sounds like a pile of crap to me. "

Yes..... a lot of gray area in that comment.

Just stop. you're making yourself look like more and more of a fool with each post the more you dig in.

The link brings up the story about the Clinton Administration giving the North Koreans a reactor. What are your thoughts on that? Big fan of giving enemies access to nuclear power which can be used for weapons? I'm sure there is a logical reason for that.

What's your point? The first graph shows the debt rapidly accelerating in the red years, starting to flatten off again during the Clinton years, only to take off again with Bush 2, and taking off even further with Obama.

As a % of GDP, the second even more clearly shows what I was referring to.

Are you trying to argue, or support my statement?
- prock

Support I guess, because it does not matter which party (Congress) is in power, the President (whoever he may be) has to work together with congress.

So when one party controls both the House and the Administration, you can see the difference when the two branches (of three) are controlled by the opposite party.

England thought he had uranium, too. They never found it.

Truth be told, there were a million reasons to knock Saddam Hussien out of power. The first Bush should have done it in 91.

I have zero problem with us removing him from power. Bush lied, kids died, blah blah blah. The left loves their simplistic little quotes.

And unlike the left, I worship nobody. I have my belief set, and I vote for those closest to it.....or in most cases, unfortunately, vote against the person farthest from it.
- bruinsbeer69

Sadam violated numerous United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) imposed on him from his invasion of Kuwait.

Just these violations alone were justification for GWB AND the Democratically controlled congress, for voting to go into Iraq.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

So yeah, I think Tim Thomas probably is a little bored.

England thought he had uranium, too. They never found it.

Truth be told, there were a million reasons to knock Saddam Hussien out of power. The first Bush should have done it in 91.

I have zero problem with us removing him from power. Bush lied, kids died, blah blah blah. The left loves their simplistic little quotes.

And unlike the left, I worship nobody. I have my belief set, and I vote for those closest to it.....or in most cases, unfortunately, vote against the person farthest from it.
- bruinsbeer69

True. The United States entered Iraq on false pretenses, but it's not as if they were just there for a laugh. Like most things in life, there was some good and some bad about it.

I should point out that I'm generally left-leaning (certainly on most social issues), and I too have a belief set and worship nobody. Good on you for exercising your democratic muscles though instead of being apathetic and/or not voting. I'll take a generally right wing guy who's against everything I stand for over a guy who doesn't even participate in the electoral process everyday.

So yeah, I think Tim Thomas probably is a little bored.
- Morris

And so are most of us contributing to this thread.

It's the same each summer, little NHL news to talk about after a number of high profile UFAs are signed.


This thread should be moved to the Misc forum, as it has nothing to do with the NHL.

True. The United States entered Iraq on false pretenses, but it's not as if they were just there for a laugh. Like most things in life, there was some good and some bad about it.

I should point out that I'm generally left-leaning (certainly on most social issues), and I too have a belief set and worship nobody. Good on you for exercising your democratic muscles though instead of being apathetic and/or not voting. I'll take a generally right wing guy who's against everything I stand for over a guy who doesn't even participate in the electoral process everyday.
- Morris

Did you not see my Today @ 11:43 AM ET post just above your's??



Here are two explanations of the Coalitions Justifications to Invade Iraq.

James P. Terry, SJD, LLM, Principal Chairman of the Board of Veteran's Appeals at the Department of Veterans Affairs, wrote in a July 1, 2004 Naval War College Review article titled "A Legal Appraisal of Military Action in Iraq":

"The determination by the George W. Bush administration to enter Iraq and remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from power in early 2003 followed twelve years of Iraqi violations of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Prior to the decision by the United States and its coalition partners to intervene in Iraq with military force, Saddam Hussein had done everything possible to avoid complying with the will of the international community. Of the twenty-six demands made by the Security Council since 1990, Iraq had complied with only three...

In Iraq, the coalition led by the United States and the United Kingdom was responding to an attack on the very effectiveness of the United Nations security system, by seeking redress for repeated violations of Security Council resolutions. If not addressed directly, these violations would have done irreparable harm to the minimum world order system represented by Article 2(4) and Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to the peace and security of the region, and to the well-being of the Iraqi people."
********************************************************************
Peter Goldsmith, QC, PC, Attorney General of the UK at the time of the quote, stated in a Mar. 7, 2003 article titled "Legal Basis for Use of Force Against Iraq" on the Office of the Prime Minister's website:

"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolutions 678, 687 and 1441. All of these resolutions were adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows the use of force for the express purpose of restoring international peace and security:...

3. A material breach of resolution 687 revives the authority to use force under resolution 678.

4. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of resolution 687, because it has not fully complied with its obligations to disarm under that resolution.

5. The Security Council in resolution 1441 gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of the "serious consequences" if it did not.

6. The Security Council also decided in resolution 1441 that, if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully in the implementation of resolution 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

7. It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

8. Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today."