Translated to mean you either can't give us a refresher or won't because it would force you to admit you are wrong.
Just to refresh your memory on President Clinton 1998 al-Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed a dozen Americans and hundreds of Africans, President Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan 1998 State of the Union Address, President Clinton warned Congress of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's possible pursuit of nuclear weapons: March 14, 1996 - President Clinton authorized $100 million counter-terrorism agreement with Israel to track down and root out terrorists April 24, 1996 - Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act President Clinton signed H.R. 4655 into law on October 31, 1998, which instituted a policy of "regime change" against Iraq (Much quoted by President Bush) Also as I pointed out previously spending on the Armed forces was again on the rise under President Clinton also the troops used to Invade Afghanistan were those who were paid for under the Clinton administration not the Bush one, they did not even pass a budget till after the event and in 2002 the armed services recieved .0.04% increase of GDP in spending up from 3% to 3.4% in 2003 it went up to 3.7% of GDP hardly the massive use of funds dont forget the war in Iraq and Afghanistan did not come out of the defence budget.
Sorry I can't dance through your personally led 'cut and pasted' version of history there Sparky. Translated to mean I refuse to jump through your distorted hoops of twisted logic. I think Davey will follow you though. Saturday night man...go have another drink.
Why do you get so defensive when one isolates one of your little "nuggets of wisdom" for comment? They're your words for goodness sake- I understand how silly they sound but they are your own thoughts, are they not? No use to quote an entire post because everything else is just random, incoherent ranting against everyone/everything that doesn't have as pathetic a life or the number of enemies as you seem to have.
I didn't actually isolate anything. That is the way he responds when he is backed into a corner. He could be honorable and just admit that the corruption today is nothing compared to what happened in this country in the late 1800's and early 1900's but instead he cries foul and calls me an alcoholic.
No point in responding to incoherent ranting then is there? "isolating" nuggets is your speciality though I know.
Did I do that? Well silly me. Can't seem to find that particular word though. However...if the shoe fits....
Calling people you don't know names won't get you off the hook. Stop clowning around and give us that refresher course on the industrial revolution already.
There you go tossing out facts and figures and stuff when TomC is here to kick around. That's easier you know.
I cannot in good conscience, follow your little bread crumb trail. You won't specifically address any of my important points. Give and take dude. Hey..what's your government id list as your party affiliation?
What important points? I am not the one in the middle of debates who jumps ship and cries "I won't jump through your hoops" You do it all day because you are a professional dodge-ball player. Government ID?????
Uh oh...it's the "post the poll" zombie again, and the clown references again too. Running out of one liners?
....and I really thought I was lowering myself to the sub primal standards of the ignorant in an attempt to communicate. That hurts Clembo.
So being irrational and tossing out some name calling is the way for one to get a response? Some sick logic (or total lack thereof) at play here.
I would respond to that but it seems a bit too rational and you didn't call me any names so I must refrain from replying and pretend your post never happened.