I quess I don't get it..

[Northern Sod Breaker]

One of my friends and fellow gun owners is a die hard democrat who said to me today that he is praying hard Hillary wins the president. Now he is the same age as me (19) but he was telling me how the economy was so great under Clinton. I was 13 when he left office and quite frankly I was too young to care. At that age I didn't know beans from buckshot about the economy. Maybe he was different. But it got me thinking. Now I was not old enough to know much about what was going on during his term(s). But here is my question to those who were old enough to care. Well actualy a series of questions

1. If he was such a great president why was he one of only two presidents in US history to be brought before an impeachment hearing?

2. If the economy is so much worse under Bush then under Clinton, why are people paying record high amounts for land. Under Clinton the going rate here was $200-$500/acre. Under Bush I see land selling for $1,500-$2,00/acre and people are thinking nothing of it. The fact land is up shows people are paying more. This shows me that they have more to spend. Or have the ability to get more (AKA good credit)

3. The local democrats say the economy is bad becuase there are no jobs in this area. This area is and always has been a dead spot for jobs. This is the fault of local governments not state or federal. So how is the President a factor? The reason there are no jobs here is because he local city governments wouldn't allow new business because it would challenge the local industrial giant Homecrest. The only thing this area has ever had to offer in the way of commerce is fast food for tourists on US 10 and US 71.

And finaly how can any gun owner possibly support any member of the Clinton family for president? Is this not compareable to a jew voting for Hitler?

I quess some things I will never get.
Shotgun,

 

[rem33]

Sounds to me like your getting it figured out at 19. Keep it up.

 

[Redworm]

1. If he was such a great president why was he one of only two presidents in US history to be brought before an impeachment hearing?

Because he was the only one that was caught getting some nookie on the side. Had he simply been honest about it no impeachment would have occurred but then again I doubt anyone here who's cheated on their s/o just came right out and admitted it.

2. If the economy is so much worse under Bush then under Clinton, why are people paying record high amounts for land. Under Clinton the going rate here was $200-$500/acre. Under Bush I see land selling for $1,500-$2,00/acre and people are thinking nothing of it. The fact land is up shows people are paying more. This shows me that they have more to spend. Or have the ability to get more (AKA good credit)

The economy is a hell of a lot more complex than that but one thing to remember is that the technology boom of the mid and late 90s really skewed the figures.

And finaly how can any gun owner possibly support any member of the Clinton family for president? Is this not compareable to a jew voting for Hitler?

Show him her voting record on gun control issues. But don't forget to show him Republican voting records on gun control issues; not as different as you might think.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Because he was the only one that was caught getting some nookie on the side. Had he simply been honest about it no impeachment would have occurred but then again I doubt anyone here who's cheated on their s/o just came right out and admitted it.

But if he lies about that what else will he lie about. Yeah your right most men would never admit. But most men ain't the president. And as such most men don't take oaths to tell the truth.

I am aware the economy is much more complicated then just the price of land but it was the most obvious example and I did not want to get into a long rant.

 

[rem33]

is much more complicated

Now that all depends on what is is.

 

[rhgunguy]

Clinton rode the tech boom and the waves of Reaganomoics to two terms. Late in his second things kind waned. People say Bush is hurting the economy, but with the NYSE hitting records and unemployment low, I don't buy it. Just the other day people were screaming that unemployment rate was up to its highest point in recent years(in the last three). The media will say misleading things like that and you hear "the unemployment rate is up". People think it is Bushes fault, but it is still lower than average for the CLinton era.

 

[Tomsriv]

I think any way you look at it their is a growing gap between the rich and the middle class. I know a lot of people, professional white-collar workers, who now work two jobs to make ends meet. Also, the price of land as an indicator of the economy is a matter of perspective. If you own land its great, If you are young like you and me and want to own a home it makes it much more difficult. To those who own land the economy is great. Its good for the haves, and harder for the have nots. I believe this example is happening throughout the economy. It is strong, but a smaller percentage are benefiting.

 

[Pointer]

Had he simply been honest about it

LOL

 

[smince]

I know a lot of people, professional white-collar workers, who now work two jobs to make ends meet.

I know people like this also, but the ones I know are trying to live waaaay beyond their means.

Great if you can AFFORD it, but most people don't need a 20,000 sq ft home and two brand new BMW's. I frequently encounter persons who pay $700+ house payments, trade cars every year, and have their credit cards maxed and complain about not making enough money

 

[wingman]

I think any way you look at it their is a growing gap between the rich and the middle class.

I think this is more key to the economy then other indicators, average
Joe with 2 kids is struggling, inflated prices on most goods, utilities, taxes,
medical care, etc. We are moving to a rich/poor society like it or not, the
question is will the American worker accept it or not.

 

[contender6030]

We are moving to a rich/poor society like it or not, the
question is will the American worker accept it or not.

The problem I have with this statement is that it is as Smince posted the middle-class' fault they are struggling don't blame it on the government! I consider myself "middle-class" I have two kids, two vehicles four years OR OLDER and a fairly moderately sized home. The problem is (and I am pointing the finger at myself also) there are a lot of middle-class and even "poor" folks out there driving new cars,wearing nice clothes and how many folks do you see without cell phones and 2 1/2 TV's in their houses? My point is there are a lot of people out there (once again as smince ealier post) living waay beyond their means with all the bells and whistles and toys that ARE NOT necessary for the feeding and raising of kids, paying utility bills,ETC and blaming the government for their "troubles", "hardships" whatever you want to call it. Once again I am guilty of this very same thing to a point but I make sure my bills are paid and my kids are fed FIRST! Then and only then do I look at the new 1911 on the market or go to the Randall website to slobber over a knife. It's called MONEY MANAGEMENT not sorry economy!

As far as Republican Vs. Demorat I would have to agree with the statement made by the original poster;;

And finaly how can any gun owner possibly support any member of the Clinton family for president? Is this not compareable to a jew voting for Hitler?

Now I'm sufficently vented FOR NOW!

 

[Ausserordeutlich]

Hmmm. Stock market at all-time high; unemployment really low. My adult progeny are all doing very well. What's not to like?

 

[Bud Helms]

Redworm:

Shotgun Minister:

1. If he was such a great president why was he one of only two presidents in US history to be brought before an impeachment hearing?

Because he was the only one that was caught getting some nookie on the side. Had he simply been honest about it no impeachment would have occurred but then again I doubt anyone here who's cheated on their s/o just came right out and admitted it.

Incorrect.

First, Clinton was not just "brought before an impeachment hearing", he was impeached.

Second, he was not impeached "because he was the only one that was caught getting some nookie on the side." He was impeached for lying while being deposed under oath. It is an oft repeated misrepresentation that Clinton was impeached for "getting some on the side." It started then and continues now. Evidence that a lie, or partial truth, repeated often enough and loud enough becomes accepted fact.

It is a well worn excuse that "we all do it." You may believe that "we all do it", but I have a flash for you: We don't all do it.

I believe it is true that the original offense gave the other side an enthusiasm for what followed and that they thought that public support would swell for their destructive objective. But that doesn't change the fact that the charge was lying under oath. The loathsome trudge through the tawdry details of the behavior of Clinton was necessary in order to establish the lying under oath. I, for one, regret the public display of all that. But I do not blame those that brought the charge, I blame those (he) that committed the offense in the first place and then lied about it.

Given the path of events since then, I wish the Senate had not done what they did. It was as though he was the first President to commit a sin.

That said, what I and many other Americans observed and remember is the way the Dems gathered on the White House lawn and made fools of themselves. Hardin comes to mind. What also sticks in my memory and re-enforced today, is the way Americans have bought the lie that Clinton was impeached for getting a little nookie on the side. There is no way an impeachment would have succeeded on those grounds. Politics would not allow it and the legality of it would have been an entirely new debate, "of good moral character" arguments aside. But the evidence of lying under oath was indisputable, based on Clinton's own statements. I am struck by how long the lie has lived.

Which brings me to my real disappointment: Clinton can still parade in public as though he was abused and never committed an illegal act. That says a truckload about his supporters and that disappoints me because they are voters, community leaders, members of government and my fellow citizens.

My view of our future as a nation is less than enthusiastic.

 

[Eghad]

Dont all elected officials take an oath? Then I guess we need to impeach a bunch elected officials.

this quote comes to mind... "The US does not torture. I have not authorised it and I will not."

 

[Gary Conner]

What Bud Helms said, times a thousand.

It is a crime to lie under oath. It was also a crime for all Senators who voted not to remove him, since even Robert Byrd was recorded during an interview saying he believed Clinton guilty, but would not vote to remove him.

The reason it was a crime, was they take an oath to support the original contract. When acting as judge for an impeachment charge, Senators are charged with upholding the contract.

Byrd didn't. (But you can't expect much integrity from a former KKK leader)

 

[Redworm]

Incorrect.

First, Clinton was not just "brought before an impeachment hearing", he was impeached.

I know, I didn't say otherwise.

Second, he was not impeached "because he was the only one that was caught getting some nookie on the side." He was impeached for lying while being deposed under oath. It is an oft repeated misrepresentation that Clinton was impeached for "getting some on the side." It started then and continues now. Evidence that a lie, or partial truth, repeated often enough and loud enough becomes accepted fact.

Yes I realize that but he never would have been asked the question had he not been railroaded for cheating on his wife. I realize he lied and for that he deserved to be impeached. I'm glad that Congress didn't see lying about a blowjob as enough to kick a President out of office but I do realize what he did wrong and why it was so wrong in the first place.

It is a well worn excuse that "we all do it." You may believe that "we all do it", but I have a flash for you: We don't all do it.

Ah, I didn't say that "we all do it". I pointed out that no one who cheats on their significant other readily admits it. Quite a difference.

I believe it is true that the original offense gave the other side an enthusiasm for what followed and that they thought that public support would swell for their destructive objective. But that doesn't change the fact that the charge was lying under oath. The loathsome trudge through the tawdry details of the behavior of Clinton was necessary in order to establish the lying under oath. I, for one, regret the public display of all that. But I do not blame those that brought the charge, I blame those (he) that committed the offense in the first place and then lied about it.

Given the path of events since then, I wish the Senate had not done what they did. It was as though he was the first President to commit a sin.

That said, what I and many other Americans observed and remember is the way the Dems gathered on the White House lawn and made fools of themselves. Hardin comes to mind. What also sticks in my memory and re-enforced today, is the way Americans have bought the lie that Clinton was impeached for getting a little nookie on the side. There is no way an impeachment would have succeeded on those grounds. Politics would not allow it and the legality of it would have been an entirely new debate, "of good moral character" arguments aside. But the evidence of lying under oath was indisputable, based on Clinton's own statements. I am struck by how long the lie has lived.

Which brings me to my real disappointment: Clinton can still parade in public as though he was abused and never committed an illegal act. That says a truckload about his supporters and that disappoints me because they are voters, community leaders, members of government and my fellow citizens.

My view of our future as a nation is less than enthusiastic.

I understand and I'm not arguing that he commited perjury. My only point is that the whole reason for him being put under oath in the first place was a waste of time.

It's funny how a President can say whatever he wants during a press conference or state of the union address but only when he's under oath does lying to the American people become a crime.

 

[Eghad]

Nor from Trent Lott...lol

Lott also sold out House Republicans during last year's trial of President Clinton. "You're not going to dump this garbage on us," Lott told GOP impeachment managers, House Judiciary investigative counsel David Schippers reports. So blame the Republicans...lol


Republicans voting not guilty:

Chafee, John (R-RI)
Collins, Susan (R-ME)
Gorton, Slade (R-WA)
Jeffords, Jim (R-VT)
Shelby, Richard (R-AL)
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME)
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) [Voted "Not Proved"]
Stevens, Ted (R-AK)
Thompson, Fred (R-TN)
Warner, John (R-VA)

 

[gc70]

Come on, Eghad, you are more discerning than that.

All politicians lie - it is part of the job description. Clinton was/is a superlative politician and a consummate liar, but he went over the line when he lied while under a specific oath to tell the truth to a court.

 

[Eghad]

not defending Clinton at all...I didnt even vote for him

So since you are saying that its okay for politicians to lie, do you accept other people lying to you?

 

[Bud Helms]

Redworm

Redworm:

It is a well worn excuse that "we all do it." You may believe that "we all do it", but I have a flash for you: We don't all do it.

Ah, I didn't say that "we all do it". I pointed out that no one who cheats on their significant other readily admits it. Quite a difference.

Yeah, I apologize. I read that one a little too fast and loose.

Redworm again:

My only point is that the whole reason for him being put under oath in the first place was a waste of time.

It's funny how a President can say whatever he wants during a press conference or state of the union address but only when he's under oath does lying to the American people become a crime.

"... a waste of time." Well that's where opinions differ. You may be right.

As far as press conferences and State of the Union Addresses vs sworn testimony goes ...that's why we call it sworn testimony, not press conference. A very important legal difference. One that a lawyer should realize.