Bill Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

justinhip

Inactive
Why, in EVERY gun shop or range I go to is Clinton hated? I understand it has to do with some sort of gun control and what not. Unfortunately, the person barking about it most usually has no teeth and is talking about how he's gonna fight off the government if they get outta line. So in those instances, how can he be taken seriously? But truthfully, what is his biggest shortcoming for the gun lobby? I have mey rifles and I have my pistols. I did it legally.... where is the problem. Yes, I'd like a carry but thats not going to happen on Long Island, NY, but then again I don't need that either.
Thanks
 
Not to start a war here, just a straight educated answer. My opinion is made and would just like to hear that of others.
 
I understand it has to do with some sort of gun control and what not.
Click to expand...

:confused: How old are you?

the person barking about it most usually has no teeth and is talking about how he's gonna fight off the government if they get outta line.
Click to expand...

Nice, stereotypical anti remark right off the bat.

But truthfully, what is his biggest shortcoming for the gun lobby?
Click to expand...

Again, how old are you? And have you bothered to do a search here on keyword "clinton"? That would help you out.

Yes, I'd like a carry but thats not going to happen on Long Island, NY, but then again I don't need that either.
Click to expand...

My crystal ball is broken, may I borrow your's please :D.

Sorry to come off so rudely, but please, do a search on the board and ALL your questions will be answered. Also, many here that responded to the past threads have all their teeth and aren't smeared in camo hiding in the bunkers. Most to all here are professionals or plain old working "joes" (like me) with just a few teeth missing.

Wayne

*if this post is unwarrented, please delete.
 
This posting could easily become long, but in the interest of brevity, I'll use bullet points as to why Bill Clinton was one of the worst US Presidents and why gun owners HATE him.

1. He ignored many warning signs, including many Al Queda and other terrorist attacks against the US in his 8 years, and botched many military missions. These attacks included a bombing of the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, US embasy in Kenya, the Oklahoma Bombing, the WACO mishap, and the Somolia disaster. He was offered Bin Laden by the Sudanese but failed to act. His failure to be proactive can be directly coorelated to 9/11, which began being plotted in 1998 (mid way through Clinton's second term).

2. He is a Democrat and loved by the left wing. That's enough!

3. He cut military and CIA budgets dramatically which weakened national security.

4. He signed the Brady Bill into law. It was the most worthless and costly legislation. It was promised to reduce gun violence. It did not. It cost tax payers millions of dollars. It put into jeopardy the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership rights. It cost the pro-gun movement millions of dollars to fight. It was just a big turd and Clinton will be forever hated by pro-gunners. All it did was weaken citizen's rights and make it more inconvenient and expensive to get hardware.

5. He lied to the American public under oath.

6. He cheated on his wife in the oval office with an employee, which destroys his credibility as a person and a man. And she wasn't even cute! :D


As an aside, we should LOVE the Brady Bill because it cost Dems alot of elections over the years in the House, Senate, and Presidency and gun control continues to cost Dems credibility and elections. And, ironically, the Brady Bill made legal gun ownership skyrocket!
 
usps45usp, the rudeness is a bit out of line. Type clinton in the search, which I did before hand, and the closest subject was something mentioning Hillary. The stereotype of no teeth and camo was the reason I asked here, looking for the "professionals and working joe's" to produce an educated answer. Not sure where the crystal ball comes from in my question. If it has to do with getting a full carry, go out to the police headquarters here and mention it. Their response is reason enough to believe it won't happen. BTW, I am 29.

Leadcounsel, thankyou for responding in the manner I was looking for. I am trying understand a solid reason for it, not the BS I have been fed previously.
 
Leadcounsel

one through three, no argument. Item four, I need more research on the subject. Items five and six, the real waste of money! In fact, that was a game I was not interested in playing, who cares. It was a smear campaign, just like attempts to mar Bush's image with his daughters or neices making headlines drinkin or getting arrested (can't remember exactly), who cares about that either. I don't buy into political games regardless of which side it comes from.
 
Clinton is not the only one that ignored warning signs. BUsh and his administration made the same mistake.

I think the main gripe about clinton for gun shop owners is because if I recall correctly ( I was around 12 at the time) Clinton tried to ban guns straight up. I may be incorrect but I hate when people say Clinton ignored warning signs when Bush himself has made many of the same mistakes.
 
Justin:

No offense, but cheating on your wife with your employee and getting caught and then lying about it UNDER OATH is not some Republican conspiracy!

Think about everyday folks. If you were cheating on your spouse with your secretary in your workplace and got caught, you'd lose your job. You might be facing sexual harassment charges. If you were asked by the Senate under oath and committed purjury, you'd certainly go to jail.

This isn't something Republicans did. He's an untrustworthy person who lied when directly asked a question: I don't care if the question was what color his car is. A lie is a lie, period. And, he's a cheater! Not really very good qualities for the leader of the free world....
 
Andrew,
I agree to some degree that Bush COULD have done something. Let's be fair.

You mean to tell me that in 8 years Clinton did NOTHING material to address the terrorists and he was a popular president (mainly due to the flourishing stock market and economy and lack of any major wars, not because of Clinton), yet a new president Bush, who was elected under much controversy, is supposed to go attacking foreign terrorist in his first 8 months of presidency? Let's be realistic and fair...

And, as evidence of his decision not to do anything preemptive against the terrorists pre-9/11, look at the continued strong resistance to preemptively striking Iraq.

In a pre-9/11 world, Bush would have been impeached for a proactive strike agaisnt the Al Queda.
 
Then where are the weapons of mass destruction we were told "are there"? Why has he not apologized for his mistake. Why does he not get indicted. Certainly has cost us a great deal more than Clinton has!
 
Justin:
In the 90’s during the Clinton administration (whom I voted for twice but would not vote for him in hindsight) Americans experienced tremendous wealth and became complacent. Clinton made MANY big mistakes as president. One BIG mistake was to ignore the ever increasing and transparent threat from the terrorist networks in the Middle East. During Clinton’s years, he was not nearly proactive enough at addressing this problem despite many warnings and attacks. Osama Bin Laden and his network bombed the World Trade Center in 1993, the American Embassy in Kenya in the mid 1990’s, the USS Cole in the late 1990’s, and a few other targets. At one point the Sudanese had the exact location of Bin Laden and offered him on a platter to Clinton. Because “proactive” wars are not popular with Americans, Clinton did little to address the terrorist problem. Until 9/11 Bush (who I also voted for twice), was equally guilty of not addressing the problem. Look what happened by ignoring the growing problem of terrorist networks that HATE the US. 9/11 was the dawn of a new era that in no uncertain terms wakes the US up and tells us we can no longer ignore those who are an immediate or future REAL threat to the US. I firmly believe that retaliation and war was necessary against those that attacked us AND those that may ally themselves with our enemies. Worldwide Dictators MUST know, in no uncertain terms, that the US (hopefully with UN support) WILL crush them if they represent a threat. In Saddam’s case, he was a Hitler-esq dictator. He had invaded and started wars with Iran and Kuwait, which cost millions of lives. He used WMDs against Iran and even HIS OWN people and killed thousands. He violated many agreements he signed with the US and UN over the previous 11 years after losing the first war, and the allies gave him 17 chances to comply. He failed to comply. He was as BRUTAL as a person can be. The left wing in American politics cries foul at the loss of thousands of innocent lives and soldiers in a very necessary and just war, yet ignores the fact that 50,000,000+ people are liberated now in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have held free elections for the first time in a billion year history! Women are no longer being raped by the government soldiers; men are no longer being tortured and having their tongues cut off and being killed. This is a GOOD thing! Yes, it is tragic that so many innocents had to die. But put in a historical perspective it’s relatively few people for such a great cause (the US lost 400,000 + in WWII, 56,000 in Vietnam, etc.). And, imagine if we were only REACTIVE. Should we simply take a WAIT AND SEE approach and only react when we have another 9/11? What IF terrorists successfully nuke Manhattan? A nuke the size of a briefcase could flatten Manhattan and kill and injure 10 million people and make the area uninhabitable for the rest of our lifetime. That is a risk we cannot take and a few thousand soldiers (who volunteered) are the price of our freedom and safety. This war not only liberates Iraq and Afghanistan, it helps to secure a foothold in the region, protect our interests in the precious supply of oil (which is clearly becoming scarce – another topic – Hubert’s theory of Peak Oil supply), and sends a very clear message to terrorists and other would be enemies such as N. Korea and China to stand down. While not perfect, I see the actions in the Middle East as just and necessary to the security of our nation and world stability. Bush took heat for not being proactive and stopping Bin Laden before 9/11, but then when he was proactive and stopped Saddam preemptively he also took a lot of heat! He can’t win with the left wing media. I think that the media fails in many respects in all areas of informing the public.

As far as WMD's, the US and UN gave Saddam years of warning to hide or dispose of his WMDs. Are you really so naive as to believe Saddam, someone proven to have researched, developed and used them in the last 30 years to kill millions of people, a person that refused to let inspectors look as he agreed to in his treaties, had no WMDs? Should we have waited until NYC was leveled "just to be certain?"

And if we did wait and NYC was leveled, do you think anyone MIGHT have criticized Bush for not taking a more proactive approach? I think there might be a call for an impeachment, but that's just my opinion...

Finally, BUSH MUST BE DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. Despite other nations being hit by terrorists, the US has not had a terrorist attack in 4 years.
 
I don't care if a presidents on his 2nd day of his job.Ok maybe not the 2nd day but you get the idea. The people elected a president to protect them and run the country. 8 Months was more then enough for him to take action. He was warned about terrorist using planes etc.. Clinton possible could have made the same mistake to. But the main point is regardless now a days who the president is there always a large list of faults. Neither Bush or Clinton were or are angels when it comes to being president. But in the latter I would choose Clinton over Bush any day.


Clinton as in Bill Clinton. Thers no way in hell id ever want Hillary to be president.
 
A nuke the size of a briefcase could flatten Manhattan and kill and injure 10 million people
Click to expand...

I agree with most of your post, but this is bunk. Briefcase nukes, otherwise known as dirty bombs are dangerous because of the radiation they give off, not the explosion.

Forget Bill Klinton, it's Hillary that we should be worrying about now. US Senators have a lot of power.
 
Why, in EVERY gun shop or range I go to is Clinton hated?

I'm going to be nice and just ask if you were in a coma from 1992 until 2000. Maybe you are just a kid and are not aware of what Klinton was up to in those years. In either case you need to hit the books harder.
 
NAME A SINGLE POSITIVE THING Clinton did in 8 years as president that significantly benefited this nation or this world? I'm not talking about the economy because that was just the luck of being in the office during an economic boom.

I can name MANY things Bush has done.

1. No terrorist attacks since 9/11, which began brewing early in Clinton's term
2. Liberated Afghanistan, first free elections EVER, has Taliban and Al Q on the run, just killed #2 Al Q and had basically made them ineffective and cut off their $ supply
3. Took down a major dictator in Saddam in a short and relatively painless war (in the historical context). Liberated Iraq, first free elections EVER. Saved tens of millions of people from oppression. Secured a foothold in the region to spread freedom, make allies, and secure our oil interests
4. Without a shot fired, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and N. Korea to secure world safety
5. Did not resign the silly Brady bill and let it flounder and die on the table like it should

that was just a moment's thoughts.... shall i continue?
 
BTW, Clinton(possible future first lady :barf: )also said that Iraq had WMD---this came(like Bush) from our and other intelligence agencies. We already knew he USED chemical and biological weapons previously. Now this was soon after 9/11, NO President having seen what Sadam had done, not complying with the UN and intelligence reports stating he had the cababilty for at least chemical and biological(plus he was striving to get nuclear) could take even a 1% chance to have another 9/11 under those circumstances.
Hasn't it ever struck you before that our military loves Bush and hated Clinton---why do YOU think that is?
 
625:

Actually, the Russians built many briefcase sized many megaton nuclear bombs whose whereabouts are unknown since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The technology in these sized bombs is as devestating as the bombs the US dropped in WWII on Japan, which would eliminate Manhatten and it's inhabitants.

Many experts theorize that the KGB sold them to the Russian mafia who in turn sold, or tried selling them, on the Black Market.
 
Why is Clinton being crusified for bin laden yet Bush has turned his focus from bin laden to Iraq and now afghanastan is a side show?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top