reasons clintons presidency was so bad

mow: are you talking to me about somalia? i have never mentioned somalia I dont think. but we did lose 19 servicemen in that conflict. somalis lost est. 1000.
the truth is that i cannot fault clinton for not wanting to start more conflicts by taking out osama. hindsight is 20/20 it is only too logical now. Im not going to monday morning quarteback anything. I personally dont know how presidents can sleep at night putting our people in harms way. I wouldnt want that job
Click to expand...
*emphasis mine

Like you're not monday morning quarterbacking Bush's decision based on WMD intel? Maybe the intel was bad, if we disregard the chemical weapons used on our soldiers. But, the fact that the intel was bad came out how many months after the fact? By the way, the Brits still maintain that their intel was good. Is there any way to tell if the intel was good or not? Personally, I don't trust the media or the politicians to tell me the objective truth anymore, so I guess I'd have to see the intel and decide for myself.

Do we still have to go back to the Clinton and Paula story? Nobody ever said what he did was right, but if that's the best you can come up, that doesn't make for a very strong case.
Click to expand...
It's a crime, man. Sexual Assault, or at the very least, harassment. Lying under oath, is also a crime. Ask Martha Stewart or Scooter Libby. Making a decision to go to war is a power given to our government, (and due to congressional cowardice this has basically been ceded to the President) is not a crime.

Isnt separation of Church from State a major part of the tenents of the democratic system
Click to expand...
No, not really. At least, not in our constitution. The only mentionings of religion is that it cannot be used to determine eligibility for political canidates and that one cannot be disriminated against because of their religion. However, anyone is entitled to vote for someone based on whether or not their religion/beliefs play an important role in their decision making.

And one last civics lesson:
We do not live in a democracy, which is based on majority opinion. We live in a republic, which is based up on rule of law. The laws of the land [should] determine our course, not majority opinion.

Oh and one more irony:
Noone, I noticed in the "GWB" thread that you stated how whenever there was a post about GWB, the conservatives had to bring up clinton. Well, now that you started a Clinton thread, do you also find it interesting that the Clinton apologists can't not bring up Bush? (I paraphrased your statement, and I also admit beforehand that I did not check to make sure it was in fact you that posted that thought, so it could be another. If so I apologize)
 
okay, how about some intellectual honesty?

For those that don't understand the concept, it basically goes to being consistent in your arguments, and admitting when you are wrong. Some would call it the rejection of hipocrisy. Some examples:

1. I have never met a black person who believes OJ is guilty.
2. I have never met a liberal who will condemn anything done by William Jefferson Clinton.

On the other hand, I, as a conservative, will readily admit to (and rage against) the shortcomings of our current administration. Let's start with border policy.

Now, your turn...and you know who you are.

Waiting, but not holding my breath.
 
Yeah Ive said it...I have no sympathy whatsoever for the law breakers at Waco..none.
Click to expand...
I know this is a bit of thread drift, but please tell me what laws the folks at Waco were convicted of?
 
I didnt mention convicted...

but did they not shoot some agents and kill at least 1? I forget the actual body count..

So yeah I have no sympathy for them
 
Holly Molly!! I'm sooo confused:confused:
Here we are "US' trying to make other countries a democracy...then again we don't need one? We instead live in a Republic based up on rule of law...What law?
What's the deal here?
I personaly don't completely agree with that sexual harrasment mombo jombo. I think it has been used way too much and I also know its happenned to some men and was not made such a big issue either.
If you can't tell someone with long hands or dirty mouth to keep off maybe it is because of a lack of brain (no offense some people is just way tooo shy I know). There is a BIG difference with RAPE and SEXUAL PREDATORS VS. SEXUAL HARRASMENT.
Let him/her try to get rid of my job or else if I don't do a favor of this kind...I'll smack the heck out of him/her right there and then ( that of course if I don't like what he/she is got to offer).
 
Last edited:
please tell me what laws the folks at Waco were convicted of?
Click to expand...


Refusal to comply with a lawful order?? :D

Shooting the BATF officers?? :eek:


Of course they didn't live long enough to get convicted...
Would that all BG's would go before they're convicted.

The little ones, and the confused ones, are the ones I cry about...
They didn't commit a capital offense. :(
 
Last edited:
Refusal to comply with a lawful order??
Click to expand...
Incorrect.

While the ATF remembered to bring their automatic weapons and ninja masks, they forgot to bring... the warrant. You know, that dumb piece of paper that they must present to enter the building?

Which made them armed and obviously dangerous home invaders, not law enforcement officers.

As to the warrant, there are many questions regarding if it was even legally obtained, and if so the legality of a "no knock" assault on citizens who had no prior history of violence or any other criminal activity.
 
I didn't particularly care for the STUPID ineffective and OVERARCHING 'assault weapon ban'. I already jumped through enough federal hoops to get my NFA items and then that stupid piece of **** comes along and makes it illegal for me to use my legally registered NFA items.

You couldn't use your REGISTERED suppressor on a new AR-15 or AK because it would be considered a flash suppressor on a post ban rifle.

You couldn't get reliable new magazines for your SMG or belts for your 1919 because of the stupid ban. In fact MAC owners are STILL suffering from that stupid POS legislation, because no one has tooled up yet to make new steel MAC mags.

Considering that I had already gone through numerous background checks, registration, paid $200 tax per weapon and waited 3-9 months (all the 'sensible gun control' the democrats wanted) the added restrictions from klinton's gun ban were a personal slap in the face.

NO democrat will ever get my vote.
 
Here we are "US' trying to make other countries a democracy...then again we don't need one? We instead live in a Republic based up on rule of law...What law?
Click to expand...

As to making other countries democracies, if you are referring to Iraq, they are becoming what they decide to become, with some sort of representative government.

There are various ways to form a representative government. Ours in the US is based upon the Constitution and laws that came about by our representative federal, state and local governments. You or I may argue that a particular representative does not represent us as an individual. However, each representative is elected by his or her particular constituents at all levels. These elected representatives then make laws and set policies that govern the lives of all citizens within the local, state, federal jurisdiction. This is known as a "representative republic." A democracy in the strictest sense is one where every decision is made by all the people and whichever course of action or policy receives 51% support from all assembled is the law/policy which is implemented, regardless of any prior laws. In our case in the US, all laws/policies are subject to a comparison ultimately to the Constitution, which is the Law to which I was referring.
 
Athens was a pure democracy and it collapsed due to ineffectiviness. There was a list of government types and the pros/cons of it and the best way was to mix em up, so we have a representative democracy with a bit of republic and oligarchy. Or was it an oligarchy with republic tendencies and representative democracy?
 
That's the problem... one law that becomes too many and makes no sense.

Thanks for the explanations, if someone had no idea about all that I'm sure they do now.
 
Rebar +1

I feel smarter now... :rolleyes:

However, wasn't all this a series of stupid mistakes by the "bureau-crazy". :)

If an LEO (even an idiot BATF one) orders you to get out of the car and put your hands on the hood... you refuse and he uses Necessary Force to extricate you... You fight back, and in the process, you are hurt...

The whole thing could have been prevented by simply obeying the lawful order. Even if there wasn't a warrant... it could have been dealt with after the fact.

The "stupid mistakes" were clearly not all on the LEO's, but on the Branch Davidian. Even when they had a chance to open their doors and save the "innocents" they were still stupid. Like a string of elephants holding tails, they followed the ass in front of them into hell. :rolleyes:

It is enough to make a series of stupid mistakes...
Why compound them with intentional ignorance?? :mad:

:)
 
The whole thing could have been prevented by simply obeying the lawful order.
Click to expand...
As stated, the order was not lawful, they failed to produce the warrant, therefore the attack was illegal from start to finish. No one is obiligated to obey an illegal order, nor surrender to, what amounts to, rogue police acting in a criminal way.

And as stated, the warrant itself is suspect:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/135wac.htm

And since the whole thing started off illegally with the intent to find them guilty, there was the distinct possibility that the ATF would just have planted evidence. Why surrender to people who meant you harm, started shooting at you first, and allowed the unsupervised access to your home where they can plant whatever they liked?

There is an immense about of research material on the web concerning this matter, and the documentary "Waco: the rules of engagement". I suggest you educate yourself before making patently absurd statements like you've been making.
 
while we're on the subject of education. Some of you boys need to put down yer moveon.org sippy cups and explain to me where President Bush lied. If he was lying then were all these fine upstanding, never wrong and way smarter than you and me, people lying too? If not How in the hell not? Gahead spit it out we all know the answer.John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003: "Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. So the threat of Saddam Hussein, with weapons of mass destruction, is real. John Kerry, January 23rd, 2003. Here's another statement....

"If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." -- Bill Clinton, February 17th, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction." -- Madeleine Albright, February 1st, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983." -- Sandy Berger, Clinton national security advisor, February 18th, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." That from a letter to President Clinton signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, October 9th, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16th, 1998




"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -- Madeleine Albright, Clinton's secretary of state, November 10th, 1999

"We begin with a common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), September 19th, 2002

"We know that he has stored nuclear supplies, secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, September 23rd, 2002

Shall I continue?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27th, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of '98. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons." -- Robert Byrd (D-WV) October 3rd, 2002.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top