Bill Clinton

Status
Not open for further replies.
I note than in neither 1992 nor 1996 did Clinton pass the 50% line-in both
elections he won the majority of the Electoral College votes but only a plurality of the popular vote, in contrast to W's winning 52% in 2004. And I suspect that if we had some sort of recall for Federal officeholders, Clinton's
term would have been cut short. California's former governor Gray Davis styled
himself after Clinton, he barely won re-election in 2002 and less than 10 months later was recalled, I read that exit polls revealed that 25% of Democrats voted to recall him.
 
leadcounsel,

Yeah look at the strong resistance to preemptively striking Iraq, and look how he is still ignoring that resistance and sending our men and women over there to die. He sat there and lied to us in the months following 9/11 about knowing an attack was coming and now we know he knew (to a certain degree) and that the U.S. was even having war games/drills that mocked the attacks that happened on 9/11 perfectly.
 
Josh,
Imagine it is September 10, 2001 and President Bush holds an emergency meeting and says to the American public:

"I fear we are in grave danger from Bin Laden and they are hatching a plot to run a plane into our cities as we speak. I want to commit a ton of money and 200,000 troups to go into Afghanistan and rid the world of this tyrant."

Do you honestly think he would have gotten the support of the people? His request would have been denied by Congress and he would have been called a warmonger, baby killer, and liar.

If you think he would have been able to take ANY preemptive action against the Al Q and Bin Laden, I think you're mistaken based on the following:

1. In the months following 9/11, we were presented with a very strong case by military intelligence was presented to the President and ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS as to the BEST INTELLIGENCE available at the time that presented evidnece that SH had used WMDs in the past, refused inspectors in violation of many treaties over the years, his own scientists defected and told us he was building and acquiring WMDs, etc. etc. etc.
2. Despite ALL of this knowledge of a real and present dangerous threat in SH, it was very difficult for the US and UN to declare war against SH. Hence, there is NO way that Bush would get approval for a preemptive strike against some Afghan terrorists when it was difficult to strike a known madman with a history of WMDs.
 
I just love how Clinton gets bashed for ignoring the threats from the Middle East but you all just feel it's OK that the Bush administration did the EXACT same thing. And not only that, they lied about it for months after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Prior to 9/11, how many attacks against US citizens by terrorists did Clinton ignore in his 8 years vs. how many terrorist attacks did Bush ignore in his 9 months?

Clinton: 1993-World Trade Center bombing, 1995-car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 1996-bomb at U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1998-RPG attack againt U.S. embassy in Beirut, 1998-U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 2000-USS Cole in the port of Aden.

Bush: .........none.

When did the CIAfirst inform the president that al Qaeda was conducting tests to elude security at major airports and they had developed a plan to hijack a plane on the east coast of the US?

Per CIA Director George Tenet, CLINTON was informed in 1998.

Exactly how many times did the president decline taking custody of bin Laden when he was offered to the US on a platter?

Clinton: 3
Bush: 0
 
Clinton is hated in gunshops because of (and solely because of) the Brady bill (AWB). The AWB was the creation of a crazed woman who has foisted her view of the world onto everyone else whether they agree or not. Thank god for the Sunset provision.

All the other crap about lying, cheating, stealing, etc is just smoke and mirrors. And then there's this:

Clinton had 8 years to deal with Bin Laden when he was prominent. Clinton twice declined the chance to have Bin Laden killed for political reasons.
Click to expand...

For the record, we were IN BED WITH Bin Ladin in the 90's. We gave him weapons because he was our "friend". Thus, we had no reason to "deal with Bin Ladin" in the first place.

In the second place, it is forbidden by existing and current executive order for the President to use, or order, assasination as a political tool. Clinton correctly declined to rescind that order as doing so would have opened a much worse can of worms than Bin Ladin could ever be. This can be bolstered by the fact that Bush has also declined to rescind it even give the events of 9/11.

Clinton is, was, and always will be a lying scumbag. However, he was our President, duly and freely elected by the people. I guess that means he represented the best and the worst of our citizenry. Too bad most only remember the worst. :(
 
Rob P. - Thanks for trying to steer this one back onto the road. :)

Let's keep this on topic, okay? Bill Clinton & Gun Shops - not Bush and September 11.

-Dave
 
Rob stated:

For the record, we were IN BED WITH Bin Ladin in the 90's. We gave him weapons because he was our "friend". Thus, we had no reason to "deal with Bin Ladin" in the first place.
Click to expand...

The US supplied equipment and warfare training to resistance in Afghanistan during its conflict with invading Russia, which ended in the 1980s. We did not supply Bin Laden nor his terrorists after that war ended. Hence, that is one of the many reasons he turned on us. Bin Laden also turned against us because Bin Laden offered his army to the Middle East to fight off the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Instead, the United States and UN were chosen and the Taliban and AQ network took this as sacreligious and declared holy war against the US.

In a nutshell we helped the AQ and Taliban repel the Russian invaders with our technology and knowhow in the 70's and 80's and they turned on us in the 90's with the aforementioned terrorist attacks. Bin Laden was vying for power and had thousands of soldiers with weapons but no enemy -- he was all dressed up with nowhere to go. So, he picked a convenient enemy, the "invading" US and UN.

So, the US was no longer "in bed with" Bin Laden and we actually viewed him as a serious threat beginning in the early 90's.

Is the President prohibitied from ordering any assassination, or just that of a diplomatic leader?

As far as Clinton and guns, I've answered those questions above... sorry if this has gotten off point.
 
I think your timeline is off abit. I dont think BinLaden and his Taliban buddies (former mujahdeen) were even on the anti US radar till mid 90s at best. The whole area is just a sign of cold war practices gone bad. Fight the russians with the locals till they leave..then leave when the Russians are gone..whats left is a power vacuum of idiot locals with awhole pile of both US and Soviet firepower, now free to persue their own idiotic fanatical beliefs. Perhaps in the future goverments should be more prudent in who they train and give munitions to rather than just getting into bad with any group of local idiots..merely because those idiots are conviently allied against a common enemy.

As for Clinton, I liked him, im my opinion the only stupid thing he did was get caught with his pants down, unlike alot of other presidents who had similar affairs and didnt get caught. Say what you want, but the US economy was in better shape a few years ago...you guys are gonna be paying of this current debt mountain for along time..
 
Some one asked

"NAME A SINGLE POSITIVE THING Clinton did in 8 years as president that significantly benefited this nation or this world?"
I can name the one good thing he did,,,,
At the end he got out of office.
I am not trying to make a joke here, I mean it, it WAS the only good thing he ever did.
 
Bush is and always will be a lying scumbag. However, he is our President, duly and freely elected by the people. I guess that means he represented the best and the worst of our citizenry. Too bad most only remember the worst.
Click to expand...

Could be changed to this and any other President in our history :D.

Justinhip: The reason that I did what I did was to "feel" you out to see if you were a troll or not. Harsh but we've been getting trolled allot it seems lately (or it could just be me).

Clinton signed the AWB into being. The only thing that saved us was the 10 year limit before it had to become permanent by the House and the Senate with the President signing it into law.

I don't know if Bush was playing to the lib side of the people when he said that he would sign it if it got to his desk, but since it died on the floor, he didn't have to worry about it.

Probably the reason that he won again (well, besides Kerry getting the dem nom.).

The AWB also included the 10round magazine limit and the banning of "high capacity" magazines.

That is one of the reason's that he was hated.

Now, for those that weren't or aren't military, there was another reason. We got crap for raises each year. He cut our resources to almost nothing. And when he came to any of the bases, the SP's (I always got those mixed up.. Security Police) had to be there with EMPTY weapons if they were anywhere around him. He and his wife just plain hated the military, and you could tell in his voice during his speeches and his body language.

The only hand that he shook were those of the base commander, us "peons" weren't good enough for him to come into the crowd (flights) to say thank you for standing on a hot tarmac for over an hour as he droned on about nothing that did anything for us.

Yet, I'm not one of the republican kool-aid drinkers either, but I think that Bush has been a hell of a better President when it comes to the RKBA. If Kerry was in office right now, I think that there would have been even more 9/11 type attacks and we would be ordered to give up our arms or else, making us even more at risk.

Look at what a dem governor and a dem major did in NO... their anwser was to disarm everyone and then leave them if they didn't wish to leave, defensless.

That is right in the dems playbook and Kerry/Edwards would have been all over that one. Even taking your shotgun and your rifle (hey, who needs to hunt during an emergency or in the mist of terror attacks).

I still have anger/dislike for Bush I for the 1986 ban on machine guns. I am upset with Bush II's spending like a drunken sailor as well as both of them, and Clinton, doing nothing with our borders.

As for the middle east, I only have one thing to ask, and then to say. Have you ever been over there? Huh? Speak up.. I can't hear you.

Then you don't have a clue what went on over there. When we got hit in Dhuran and the buildings fell, guess what, those were my people, Air Force and my other military comrades.

I had the honor of being in the flight when we dedicated the memorial site to them at Prince Saltan. I worked Comm, and we worked with intel, there is allot that we as civilians just aren't privy too and we never will.

I say that we dump em all (all the pols) and start over. Go back to our roots and start again.

Only then could we be a great country that may last another 200+ years.

Wayne
 
NAME A SINGLE POSITIVE THING Clinton did in 8 years as president
Click to expand...

It can't be done, leadcounsel. He was too busy being "serviced" by Monica, having phone sex with her, letting terrorism go on unchecked, orchestrating cover-ups and comitting perjury to actually engage in any leadership activities.

Someone asked why Clinton is so despised by gun owners. To what has already been said, let me add these points:

1: He is a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and as such, is diametrically opposed to everything the Constitution and Bill of Rights stand for.

2: He has absolutely not one whit of integrity.

3: He is a coward - his refusal to strike at the roots of terrorism abundantly illustrate this.

4: He loathes the military by his own admission, yet sent men 10,000 times better than himself to Somalia to die in a slipshod operation which he manipulated from Washington by tying the hands of the on-site commanders.

5: He abused the office which he held to further his own personal goals with no thought of the consequences of his actions.

6: He made the United States and the office of the Presidency a laughingstock before the world.

Bottom line: Bill Clinton is a worthless, pathetic excuse of a human being, plain and simple. He is to the Presidency what Jimmy Swaggart is to the ministry.
 
I've been asked to keep this thread on topic so I will, but let me just say that I am in no way backing Clinton for the decisions he did or did not make. I think he screwed up majorly in the first WTC attacks, and especially with Waco and the Oklahoma City bombings. It's just that Bush is 10 times worse. :p
 
The economy had a lot to do with the first republican controlled congress in 40+ years, Clinton took the credit.

One of Clintons great accomplishments was midnight basketball, how soon we forget the big ones that helped shape the country.

and lets not forget President Bush didn't have a complete staff and cabinet for the first 5 out of the 8 months of his first term thanks to the democrats and clinton.

kenny b
 
Last edited:
lol so often Ive heard this. Whether you liked him or not or agreed with his personal habits or his lack of integrity, Clinton was and still is an intelligent capable guy who did alot for US international relations and bolstering the US economy. Frankly I dont think its in US interests longterm to continue the us or them mentality and keep things geared towards an insulated society with little thought to any concerns out of the USA. EIther way things will change, unless Bush goes nuclear, it seems unlikely he will be able to get a third term.
 
In this entire thread, there's one tiny island of reasonability.. Somewhere in the midst of page 2, in a post by Rob P.

If you're just joining this in progress, seek it out. Read it. Then go back to the new posts and find something more interesting to read on, coz this thread is just more of the usual rehashed political vitriol.
 
Oh, I forgot a couple:

Bill Clinton changed the ATF laws that put allot of home dealers out of business with the storage laws and the store front laws.

Wayne
 
Bill Clinton
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Click to expand...


This post seems to me to be troll-ish.

I came from Long Island. I had a Suffolk County pistol permit, which was balls hard to obtain. They make you jump through b.s. hoops, like getting three character references whom they never even contacted to ask about me, anyway. etc. etc. And after all the vetting -- which they take 6 months to do -- they won't even let me carry for my own protection. Only to-and-from the range, and even then the guns you're bringing are supposed to be locked. (Ask me if I ever went to or from the range without at least ONE gun unlocked, loaded and ready to defend against the others getting stolen by force...)

Where is the problem? The problem is with docile, "I'll-do-only-what-the-government-lets-me-do-and-never-allow-myself-to-want-more-than-that" gun owners like you.

The problem is with gun owners like you who are without hope -- those who say, "We can't ever fight and get what we want. It has always been this way for me and it will always be this way. Nothing can be done."

Tell that to the 34 or so states that have seen shall-issue concealed carry laws passed.

Nice attitude, guy. Makes me kind of ashamed that you're also a gun owner.

Why is it that you feel you "don't need" to carry? (You say you'd "like" to, after all...) Aren't there people in Wyandanch, Riverhead, Hempstead, ad nauseum, that might be not-so-nice and may try to hurt you or yours, and you could find yourself in need of a gun to defend yourself? Hell, they could be in Smithtown, for all I know -- although the population of Smithtown tends to be less of the violent criminal sort than that of the towns I mentioned. Most of us "don't need" to carry for days, months, years on end; and then one day, carrying may be all that can save us from a spur-of-the-moment lethal threat.

What did Bill Clinton do to piss us gun owners off? He paid MAJOR lip service to the preposterous claims of the gun control crowd: treating as fact all the crap about how lethal "assault weapons" were compared to others; allowing the population to mistakenly but passionately believe that our AR-15s are fully automatic; banning whole classes of firearms from importation by executive fiat; allowing agencies like BATF and FBI to run roughshod over not just the rights but the lives of innocent Americans; passing absurd legislation like the AWB in '94, which drove up prices on good guns, purported to be "getting deadly assault weapons off the streets" while doing nothing of the kind, and needlessly limiting magazine capacity to 10 rounds on new magazines as though that was going to save even one life.

He pointed his finger at us and told us that we were too fixated on preserving individual rights, which were getting in the way of government ruling over us.

It's impossible for me to believe that a man who is supposedly such an educated scholar could believe 1/64th of the crap he told the American people, regarding what his efforts would accomplish. For example, claiming to us that the AWB would be making us safer. Could he really be intelligent, and yet believe that outrageously stupid and incorrect claim?


If you don't know this stuff, you either haven't been a gun owner for very long (in which case I could excuse you while you put in the time and get to be familiar with this history), or you just haven't paid attention to the world around you as it's been happening.

Open your eyes and ears and put out your antennae. It's your responsibility as a gun owner to be on guard against the government's lying shenanigans that threaten all of our rights.


-blackmind
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top