|
|
Post by bolverk on May 22, 2008 13:24:21 GMT -5
Can you explain the significance of all these names you just posted? The ones I put up were forced resignations due to incompetence, scandal (not sex related), and corruption in the White House.  Those 42 convictions were not for sex related charges. Heck, even Bill Clinton himself was convicted for felony perjury. How many convictions or indictments have there been in this administration? |
|
|
|
Post by harpman1 on May 22, 2008 13:24:34 GMT -5
Playing dumb is Hillary's game(I'm sorry, I can't recall). All administrations switch Cabinet Secretarys around the end of term #1. Clinton's spent more time in front of juries & jailers than GWB's ever could. Blowjobs aside, Bubba was indicted; impeached; convicted & disbarred. His admin. is the laughingstock of history. Beyond the moveon & dailykos hysterics, do you really think if there were indictable/impeachable offenses that existed in the real world with actual evidence, that Reid & Pelosi wouldn't have already made their move? Next you'll tell us the Rosenbergs were innocent & Alger Hiss wasn't a Soviet agent!
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 12:03:39 GMT -5
You're living in a fantasy world. Clinton is remembered as a great President, especially now that he is contrasted with GW Bush. Remember, blowjobs never hurt anyone while Bush's blunders have cost thousands their lives.
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 12:34:31 GMT -5
Back to the issue, here is further proof that we need to take action against rampant pollution. Not only for the rest of the world (climate change) but for our own health. See this article, released today: www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/05/23/BAFB10RFT5.DTL You would think we would care more about the health of our fellow Americans which is something Obama represents and the Republicans have neglected. Stringent environmental regulation and universal health care is a good start. |
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 23, 2008 12:52:09 GMT -5
Right Saunterelle,
On June 26, 1993, Clinton bombed Baghdad in retaliation for an alleged but unproven Iraq plot to assassinate former President George Bush. Eight Iraqi civilians, including the distinguished Iraqi artist Layla al-Attar were killed in the raid, and 12 more were wounded. This kind of unilateral action in response to an unproven charge is a violation of international law. The legal excuse given by U.S. officials, which they relied on in justification of the bombing of Libya in 1986, is the right to self defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But that Article requires that the response be to an immediate threat to the retaliating party, clearly not the case, and therefore a legal fraud.
The same point can be made as regards his 1998 bombing of Afghanistan and the Sudan. Unknown numbers were killed in Afghanistan (and by the missiles that accidentally landed in Pakistan), and the pharmaceutical factory destroyed in the Sudan was the major source of medical drugs in that poor country. All evidence points to the fact that the Sudan factory destroyed had no connection whatever to chemical weapons or Bin Laden, and was bombed on the basis of insufficient and poorly evaluated data. ----NO EFFING WAY ----BAD DATA NO WAY NO NO NO I DONT BELIEVE THIS......Sarcasm/off
And let's not forget his policy of sanctions on Iraq, supplemented by the maintenance of intense satellite surveillance and regular bombing attacks that have often resulted in civilian casualties. UNICEF reports that in 1999 more than 1 million Iraqi children under 5 were suffering from chronic malnutrition, and some 4,000-5,000 children are dying per month beyond normal death rates from the combination of malnutrition and disease. Death from disease was greatly increased by the shortage of potable water and medicines, that has led to a 20-fold increase in malaria (among other ailments).-----Oops he bombed the medicine factory...
And let us not forget the NATO-U. S. war against Yugoslavia that included 74 days of high altitude BOMBING authroized by...guess who?. And the gradual extension of targeting to civilian infrastructure and civilian facilities-therefore civilians who would be in houses, hospitals, schools, trains, factories, power stations, and broadcasting facilities. Two months after the war was over, the BBC "revealed" that the attack on Yugoslav television on April 23 was part of an escalation of NATO bombing whereby the target list was extended to non-military objectives; NATO was "taking off the gloves. According to Yugoslav authorities, 60 percent of NATO targets were civilian, including 33 hospitals and 344 schools, as well as 144 major industrial plants and a large petro-chemical plant whose bombing caused a pollution catastrophe.....woopsie doodle.
AND ON TOP OF ALL THAT -In 1994 President Clinton began personally authorizing the export of advanced, nuclear hardened, encryption technology directly to communist China. The exports took place with presidential waivers that included the signature of Bill Clinton. They also took place using loopholes and bureaucratic gray areas of U.S. export law. The Clinton exports included such military items as advanced fiber optic communications; radiation hardened encrypted satellite control systems, encrypted radios and cellular phones, and encrypted navigation systems. According to the GAO, President Clinton even approved the sale of a fully operational, secure air traffic control system for the Chinese Air Force.
ALL OF WHICH WERE CLASSIFIED AT THE TIME....
No the man is a Saint for sure
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 13:16:38 GMT -5
No President is a "saint" but Clinton's mistakes pale in comparison to what Bush has put us through. Look at the economy during Clinton's Presidency and look at it now. Remember Bush's handling after Katrina? His handling of the Iraq war and the irreplaceable artifacts from the world's first civilizations that were looted or destroyed? The failed "no child left behind" and abstinence-only programs implemented in our schools. Horrendous damage to our environment. The list goes on and on...
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 23, 2008 13:20:26 GMT -5
And so does Bill's I edited it down to be manageble. Only adding in the major portions where he caused DEATH, because as you said .
"Remember, blowjobs never hurt anyone while Bush's blunders have cost thousands their lives."
To which I would counter except YOUR WIFE who WAS NOT the "Blower"....
And uh he DID kill a WHOLE Bunch of people too....
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 23, 2008 13:20:42 GMT -5
No one here is disputing the need for good stewardship of resources or reducing pollution. Typical of the alarmists - the claim that if you are not in lockstep with them, then you must be 180 off, and in the case of environmental concerns, be clubbing baby seal, nuking whales, and burning tires just for fun. Like it or not, the supposed link between global warming and human activity isn't yet proven beyond a doubt. If human activity were the root cause, then Hudson Bay would still have half a mile or so of ice on it, Yosemite Trough (not a true valley, but a glacial trough) would have been full of ice when John Muir saw it. But we don't need, nor can we tolerate, the global redistribution of wealth that is the goal of the alarmists.
By the way, that new study you posted the link to isn't new at all, been seeing stuff like that since the 70s.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrroqout on May 23, 2008 13:24:29 GMT -5
Hey didn't Illinois Sen. Barack Obama call not only for a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but a redeployment of troops into Afghanistan and even Pakistan, with or without the permission of Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf?
Sounds safe logical and rather peaceful to me......
Because Pakistan will just roll over and wont launch any nukes or nothin'...
|
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on May 23, 2008 13:53:05 GMT -5
Are you saying the study isn't accurate Joe?
If you agree that pollution needs to be reduced then you should be up in arms over Bush's 2003 "Clean Skies" amendment to the Clean Air Act of 1970 which is the primary federal law governing air quality.
The Clear Skies legislation set new targets for emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides from U.S. power plants. But these targets are weaker than those that were in place. Compared to previous law, the Clear Skies plan allows three times more toxic mercury emissions, 50 percent more sulfur emissions, and hundreds of thousands more tons of smog forming nitrogen oxides. It also delays cleaning up this pollution by up to a decade compared to the prior law and forces residents of heavily-polluted areas to wait years longer for clean air compared to the prior Clean Air Act. Do you really think the Republicans are looking out for the health and wellbeing of the American people??
And mrroqout, thank God Obama will safely pull our troops out of Iraq and use them where they are needed. He will have a much more effective foreign policy than Bush did.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on May 23, 2008 14:59:54 GMT -5
Saunterelle... The air is far cleaner in California than it was during the 1960's and 1970's. The number of instances of exceeding standards continues to decline year over year, even though the standards have become much more stringent.
Aside from driving up the prices of fuel and vehciles ever more, what exactly are more stringent standards going to do for us? After all, the United States (even with all our cars) pollutes fractions of what the rest of the developed world does... like China, India and Eastern Europe. Why must we in the United States continue to pay such onerous costs for our own successes?
To you other point... If anyone thinks Barack is going to actually pull all of our troops out of Iraq unilaterally, they are dreaming. It is not going to be morally or politically possible for him to do that. He is either horribly naive or flat lying to say that he can with a straight face.
|
|
|
|
Post by subdjoe on May 23, 2008 15:00:11 GMT -5
No, I'm not saying it isn't accurate, just that the alarmists are 'discovering' something that what has been known for a while.
And, gee, nice assumption on your part that I'm in favor of weakening environmental protection, especially re: toxic emissions that can be easily reduced. See my previous comment about the alarmists being quick to demonize those not in lockstep with them.
So, if I apply your methods to what I percieve your politics to be, then you favor midnight police raids to confiscate all privately owned firearms (an idea Barry seems to like), forcing every woman to have at least one abortion, putting a 500% tax on every automobile with an engine larger than that 3 cyl. Geo Metro, and redistributing 75% of our wealth to other countires. Silly, isn't it? So you might want to back away from your assumptions that everyone who disagrees in the least with your socialist views is somehow a seal clubbing, knuckle-dragging inbred goober. Lots of us take government very seriously. We also take the Constitution seriously. We are not ignorant of current events, we are quite capable of being outraged at the goings on of both sides of the aisle.
But, we also get tired of the fascist-liberals constant whining and rushing to 'do something' about every problem (or imagined problem) before they really know what the hell they are doing and what the results of their actions will be. And of the lynch mob mentality that blames Bush for every hangnail, broken egg yoke, and bad haircut in the last decade. And the condescending, elitist attitude that everyone to the right of Engles is too stupid to be able to figure out anything more complicated than a knife and fork and need to be protected from everything. Get back to me when you have had three (3) of your elected reps. have their staff tell you that their minds are made up, they don't need any outside opinions, especially those that differ from their socialist points of view. I've had to call GOP representatives in other districts to get accurate and timely information about pending legislation. Funny how I get better service from them than I do from the likes of Boxer, Woolsey, or my then memeber of the Assembly Joe Nation. And I still have to look to other districts to get information. All I get from DiFi, Boxer, Woolsey, Migden, and Huffman are unkept promises to get back to me. I shouldn't say that, they do sometimes get back to me, either with form letters that don't have the information I wanted, or too late for me to comment, and have friends comment, on pending legislation.
|
|
