Bill Clinton

[wayneinFL]

Wars and "sexual relations" (however you define them) aside, doesn't the main anti-Clinton sentiment among gun owners stem from the gun laws? The AWB, Brady Bill, his directives to the BATF? Are there more?

 

[leadcounsel]

459 stated:

BTW any of these nukes arguable will come from Russia. Why is it that Bush has repeatedly not made it a concern to help the Russians with safe storage and provide them with resources to help guard their arsenals? The Russians are incapable of doing it themselves or dont have the money. Could it be that in the long run war is profitable and for the ultra rich big business war is desirable as well?

If Bush was bombing Afghanistan to bits and you had 130K troops in Kabul I dont think the rest of the world would be shaking it head and wondering what you were doing in Iraq

Perhaps my stupid analogy will sum it up.

Bob attacks Doug
Doug now punches out Steve

but what about Bob?

GOOD GRIEF YOU NEED SOME HELP SON!

First, Russian scientists have defected and are following the money with their knowhow. Second, many nuclear components were "lost" in the power struggle in Russia, sold by the KGB to the mafia and buried in the black market. They are available to the highest bidder by all respectable accounts.

Next, take a history lesson. In WWII, the US stayed out of the direct war until JAPAN bombed Pearl Harbor. How did the US respond? We joined the Allies and attacked Japan AND Germany! DUH? Can you see the analogy. Just because the terrorist don't have a signed treaty of allegence between the Al Q and Iraq, doesn't mean they're not calling plays from the same playbook.

The US would be stupid to go all the way there, beat the Al Q, and then leave with an evil dictator that is making WMDs. Think about it...

As for Bush, he didn't sign the AWB last year. 'nuff said.

 

[459]

well

first off its a well known Pakistani physists who was actively helping Bin Laden and his buddies. Second off, when you consider the fact that approximately 10kgs of weapons grade plutonium has been awol from a certain mid american nuke plant...whats your point? Theres lots of it floating around.

History lesson?

Silver Bund league?
There were plenty of US politicians who felt that WW2 was strictly a european thing and wouldve happily sat it out, with full knowledge of the holocaust and all. Wanting it to be otherwise doesnt change the facts. Frankly its also highly debatable that had Hitler had not of declared war on the USA, FDR wouldve limited it to strictly a pacific US-Japan conflict. These comments dont lessen in anyway what us troops did in helping free Europe from facism but like anything should be considered as part of the messy political picture.

Lead I take it back you do have a good grasp of many issues. But I would look alittle more closely at the details.
So no I dont see your analogy. Or did you really think Sadamm might attack say North Carolina with mustard gas laden artillery shells?

Im not against fighting the fight, you just gotta make sure that your picking the right enemy and your policians are to busy lining their pockets to get things sorted out right.

You might be right on me needing some help though, as i think ive eaten to much fried chicken tonight and could use an alka seltzer the size of a hockey puck..thanks for the kind words.

 

[Rob P.]

As for Rob P, I just finished reading my Constitution and my Bill of Rights and I'll be damned if I can find the rights that he's speaking of

You mean you ACTUALLY LOOKED in the Constitution for the right to privacy? BWAHAHAHAH! The right to privacy exists because the SCOTUS determined that "the right to privacy is inherent" in the Constitution. That means it's not specifically deliniated there but it exists anyway. What about a womans right to decide if she wishes to bear a child or not? THAT'S not in the Constitution either but I bet you'll have a hard time convincing 100 women it doesn't exist.

the only one that I have found is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, of which he says that we're being short sighted in trying to protect.

Actually, I said that I'd rather protect the rights that aren't specifically enumerated first and then protect those rights that take ratification to get rid of. Those rights which aren't expressly noted in the BofR are MUCH more fragile and prone to loss than those which are.

I also noticed that he failed to mention the first attack on The Towers which happened under clintons watch.

Guilty as charged. Sorry about that. Just goes to show the world is a large & dangerous place. Have to think about that one some more. Maybe I'll change my opinion.

And, as for his "they were military so they were okay targets", well, we weren't at war at the time, so therefore I don't know how he could say that? Unless he would lead us to believe that if we hadn't declared war and just "struck" the Iraqi army/forces and then taken Saddam out that way, then that would have been okay but since we declared war, then it's wrong.

ALL military ships, equipment & personnel are legitimate MILITARY targets at any and all times. You don't have to actually "declare war" before you strike a military target. In addition to that, guerilla warfare doesn't NEED a declaration of war by either side. It's "strike & retaliate" as needed or are you saying that the current conflict in Iraq or Israel is different from the USS Cole incident and that the worldwide paramilitary/terrorist problem is also Clinton's "fault"?

And Rob P. also says that we need to look at the big picture. I've seen more of that picture then he has

Really? And you KNOW this based upon........?

One of the examples of why Bush is bad was the No Child Left Behind Act.

You DO realize don't you that this bill was the brain child of Teddy Kennedy right? That Bush, having not the guts that he should have, signed it to try to bridge the gap between the aisle. Didn't work, it was a bad bill, and you blame Bush, when it was Kennedy's Bill.

Bush failed the people when he decided to sign a piece of legislation that was bad for the country. It doesn't matter who authored it, Bush's JOB is to veto stuff that is bad for the country. The fact is, Bush signed on to the bill and now endorses it as great legislation at every opportunity.

However, this thread isn't supposed to BE about GDub or suitcase nukes or whether or not I've "been around" as much as the next guy. It was supposed to be about "Why is Clinton hated so much in gun shops."

I believe I answered that question. And supported my opinion while doing so without pointing fingers or casting aspersions upon anyone here.

I'm done, next.

 

[Massan]

Well now for my $0.02 on Clinton and the new "debate" on Bush and his actions.

1. Clinton lied under oath, that is enough for me to hate him. That sh*t bout Ken Starr and the Republicans making it up as a smear campaign is utterly bs, what bout the smear campaign the Democrats did for Bush? Nobody said anything because the media is liberal and roots for the Left.

2. Clinton's actions in Somalia made me hate him even more. Had Clinton cared more for the armed forces he sent over than being "politically correct" he would have authorized the much needed armor backup that would have saved a lot of soldiers' lives. Not to mention the descration of the fallen soldiers bodies being shown on TV. By all reason he should have been consumed by righteous anger and sent more support for the troops, instead he withdrew all military forces and sent a message out to the worlds terrorists that if you kill a few soldiers, we will give up and leave you alone. What ever happend to the old saying, "If its worth fighting for, its worth dying for."? He also ruined the career of an excellent general.

3. Clinton = anti-gun and 2nd amendment.

4. Bush let the badly concieved AWB expire, good man.

5. The invasion of Iraq was not planned as well as it should have been but Bush himself is not the one making the plans.

6. Bush recieves information that is suppose to be accurate and he acts on it so its not his fault if the WMD's reported in intelligence reports given to him are not there. Unlike Johnson(Democrat) during the Vietnam war who made up his intelligence.

7. Now the recent reports on how the pentagon recieved information on the 9/11 hijackers and didnt act on them is pretty bs. Had Bush attempted to pass any law or put the FBI on alert for suspected terrorists of an arab(not sure what the proper term is so dont yell at me for that) appearance the Democrats would have reared up and called Bush racist and opposed everything. Hell, the Democrats wouldn't let Bush do that AFTER 9/11.

8. After the descration of the four Blackwater Securities employees in Fallujah, Bush did not run away like Clinton did and instead there was a full military retilation aganist the terrorist stronghold which proves to them that we will not stand for that.

9. Despite some "bad" descisions on Iraq, Bush is showing the world that we will not just give up and run away and instead we will stay and right the wrongs and see things through.

10. With Bush, you know where he stands and that he will not waver from his view or only a little unlike Kerry, who would shift with the winds.

11. When Bush met with the families of the fallen soldiers, he wept with them at their loss.

12. Bush doesn't need to fake being compassionate towards our armed forces like Hillary... http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/crossed.asp

 

[TheBluesMan]

I think we're going to let Massan have the last word in this thread. It has been a good discussion overall, but with a little too much ad hominem in places.

Let's all take a breather on this subject for a little while, okay?

Thanks.

-Dave