Off-Topic :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: June 08, 2008 05:42PM
Watching the McLaughlin Group today, the blond conservative woman Monica something made mention we are now out of the Clintonian Misery.
I was thinking to myself, we had 8 years of Clinton I, ands I remember those years. Unemployment was very low, we were not in a major war, people got raises, gas was cheap, the budget had a surplus etc.
Now I know under Bush II we have had blunders: The Iraq War, Katrina, tax cuts favoring the rich, thew US dollar in the toilet, The suspension of habeas corpus, the fact he used Presidential signing statements more often and more blatantly in defiance of what he was signing that any other president, putting "good religous people" in key positions at government agencies to further his agenda, FISA/Illegal wiretqapping that was used against his political opponents (trust us it is to monitor terrorists (and democrats)), etc etc etc.
You know a Presidency is bad when you can rate the disasters.
So my question to you is - was your life better at the end of Clintons 8 years or is your life better at the end of this 8 years?
I was thinking to myself, we had 8 years of Clinton I, ands I remember those years. Unemployment was very low, we were not in a major war, people got raises, gas was cheap, the budget had a surplus etc.
Now I know under Bush II we have had blunders: The Iraq War, Katrina, tax cuts favoring the rich, thew US dollar in the toilet, The suspension of habeas corpus, the fact he used Presidential signing statements more often and more blatantly in defiance of what he was signing that any other president, putting "good religous people" in key positions at government agencies to further his agenda, FISA/Illegal wiretqapping that was used against his political opponents (trust us it is to monitor terrorists (and democrats)), etc etc etc.
You know a Presidency is bad when you can rate the disasters.
So my question to you is - was your life better at the end of Clintons 8 years or is your life better at the end of this 8 years?
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 08, 2008 06:51PM
As bad as Bush II was, events during an administration are not necessarily caused by events occurring during the administration. The business cycle benefitted Clinton due to economic policies of Reagan/Bush I, as well as the spending controls instituted by a Republican Congress that practiced fiscal conservatism, as opposed to the recent one.
Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 08, 2008 07:22PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As bad as Bush II was, events during an
> administration are not necessarily caused by
> events occurring during the administration.
Bullshit. The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. It was an unnecessary war.
The
> business cycle benefitted Clinton due to economic
> policies of Reagan/Bush I, as well as the spending
> controls instituted by a Republican Congress that
> practiced fiscal conservatism, as opposed to the
> recent one.
>
Bullshit again. The economy grew under Clinton because he moved to cut the deficit. The Republicans didn't practice any fiscal discipline, Clinton did. The Republicans that were "disciplined" during Clinton's Administration are the same ones who spent like drunken sailors for most of Bush's time in office. As for Reagan and Bush's economic records, you have two of the worst recessions over the past 40 years, the S&L bailout, the collapse of the junk bond market, the decline of U.S. manufacturing and some of the biggest increases in Federal spending ever.
> Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the
> Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the
> causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
Really? Al Qaeda's rationale for 9/11 is the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia...which started on Bush I's term. Also, Rumsfeld changed the rules about fighter intercepts when Bush took office. Previously, ground commanders could scramble fighters in response to a threat. That is why U.S. jets followed Payne Stewart's jet 20 minutes after its radio went dead. When Rummy took over, the order had to go through the Secretary of Defense. That's why nobody knew who was in control or who could order a shootdown on 9/11 because Rumsfeld was in a field helping with the injured instead of acting as Secretary of Defense during a national crisis.
-------------------------------------------------------
> As bad as Bush II was, events during an
> administration are not necessarily caused by
> events occurring during the administration.
Bullshit. The invasion of Iraq was Bush's decision. It was an unnecessary war.
The
> business cycle benefitted Clinton due to economic
> policies of Reagan/Bush I, as well as the spending
> controls instituted by a Republican Congress that
> practiced fiscal conservatism, as opposed to the
> recent one.
>
Bullshit again. The economy grew under Clinton because he moved to cut the deficit. The Republicans didn't practice any fiscal discipline, Clinton did. The Republicans that were "disciplined" during Clinton's Administration are the same ones who spent like drunken sailors for most of Bush's time in office. As for Reagan and Bush's economic records, you have two of the worst recessions over the past 40 years, the S&L bailout, the collapse of the junk bond market, the decline of U.S. manufacturing and some of the biggest increases in Federal spending ever.
> Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the
> Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the
> causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
Really? Al Qaeda's rationale for 9/11 is the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia...which started on Bush I's term. Also, Rumsfeld changed the rules about fighter intercepts when Bush took office. Previously, ground commanders could scramble fighters in response to a threat. That is why U.S. jets followed Payne Stewart's jet 20 minutes after its radio went dead. When Rummy took over, the order had to go through the Secretary of Defense. That's why nobody knew who was in control or who could order a shootdown on 9/11 because Rumsfeld was in a field helping with the injured instead of acting as Secretary of Defense during a national crisis.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 08, 2008 07:48PM
lol, good revisionism. Clinton never moved to cut the deficit. He was forced into signing Congressional legislation to do so after the Contract with America swept the Democrats out of Congress. You need to brush up on the budget process... spending authority is only in Congress. It is impossible for a president to "cut the deficit." A president can only pass on recommendations to do so to the Congress.
I didn't say the Iraq war didn't fully happen under Bush's watch, where are you getting that? Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had it not been for Sept 11.
I didn't say the Iraq war didn't fully happen under Bush's watch, where are you getting that? Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had it not been for Sept 11.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 08, 2008 09:20PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As bad as Bush II was, events during an
> administration are not necessarily caused by
> events occurring during the administration. The
> business cycle benefitted Clinton due to economic
> policies of Reagan/Bush I, as well as the spending
> controls instituted by a Republican Congress that
> practiced fiscal conservatism, as opposed to the
> recent one.
>
> Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the
> Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the
> causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
WTF? the economic"cycle" you speak of begins two and a half years after the mark, not a decade or more. As for the Republican Congress in the 90's, it bought us leadership of Newt, the Singing Senators-Craig, Ashcroft,Lott, and Jeffords,who all who had crises after crises. The Republican Congress of the 90's took away federal subsidies for after school programs in inner cities, removed "gun related" accident and death from the CDC's cause of death tracking, and forced the President to sign welfare to work for single mothers with kids under four years old. Every State Attorney General in this country has cried fowl on that one.
As for the current idiot, his arrogance and deception finally caught up with him, and even checks mailed to every taxpayer, and then some, has not raised his approval rating to that of 1974 Nixon. When the Supreme Court bitch slaps the President three times, you know you have a rogue, self centered asshole in the driver's seat.
Clinton vocally warned the incoming President of the bin Ladin threat; Bush II while on vacation at the ranch yelled at an aid that bought him urgent news about an upcoming attack. Georgie finished by saying "you've done your job, now get out." Now who is at fault here?
-------------------------------------------------------
> As bad as Bush II was, events during an
> administration are not necessarily caused by
> events occurring during the administration. The
> business cycle benefitted Clinton due to economic
> policies of Reagan/Bush I, as well as the spending
> controls instituted by a Republican Congress that
> practiced fiscal conservatism, as opposed to the
> recent one.
>
> Bush wouldn't have had the chance to dismantle the
> Constitution if Sept. 11 hadn't happened, and the
> causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton.
WTF? the economic"cycle" you speak of begins two and a half years after the mark, not a decade or more. As for the Republican Congress in the 90's, it bought us leadership of Newt, the Singing Senators-Craig, Ashcroft,Lott, and Jeffords,who all who had crises after crises. The Republican Congress of the 90's took away federal subsidies for after school programs in inner cities, removed "gun related" accident and death from the CDC's cause of death tracking, and forced the President to sign welfare to work for single mothers with kids under four years old. Every State Attorney General in this country has cried fowl on that one.
As for the current idiot, his arrogance and deception finally caught up with him, and even checks mailed to every taxpayer, and then some, has not raised his approval rating to that of 1974 Nixon. When the Supreme Court bitch slaps the President three times, you know you have a rogue, self centered asshole in the driver's seat.
Clinton vocally warned the incoming President of the bin Ladin threat; Bush II while on vacation at the ranch yelled at an aid that bought him urgent news about an upcoming attack. Georgie finished by saying "you've done your job, now get out." Now who is at fault here?
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 08, 2008 09:34PM
Hard to read past the first sentence which shows such a blatant misunderstanding of what business cycles are it is pathetic. If business cycles were so exactly defined we'd all be rich.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: June 08, 2008 10:20PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had
> it not been for Sept 11.
Re-phrase this to read "Had it not been for September 11th, Bush II would not have been able to ignore contradictory evidence and shove lies down the throat of Congress to authorize the invassion of a country for no fucking reason what so ever.
CIA Codename Curveball.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had
> it not been for Sept 11.
Re-phrase this to read "Had it not been for September 11th, Bush II would not have been able to ignore contradictory evidence and shove lies down the throat of Congress to authorize the invassion of a country for no fucking reason what so ever.
CIA Codename Curveball.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 08, 2008 10:25PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it
> had
> > it not been for Sept 11.
>
> Re-phrase this to read "Had it not been for
> September 11th, Bush II would not have been able
> to ignore contradictory evidence and shove lies
> down the throat of Congress to authorize the
> invassion of a country for no fucking reason what
> so ever.
>
> CIA Codename Curveball.
Agreed on both phrasings.
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it
> had
> > it not been for Sept 11.
>
> Re-phrase this to read "Had it not been for
> September 11th, Bush II would not have been able
> to ignore contradictory evidence and shove lies
> down the throat of Congress to authorize the
> invassion of a country for no fucking reason what
> so ever.
>
> CIA Codename Curveball.
Agreed on both phrasings.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Vince(1)
()
Date: June 08, 2008 11:29PM
If Clinton could've kept his zipper zippered he would have gone down in history as one of the best.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
FUNdamental
()
Date: June 09, 2008 07:07AM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to read past the first sentence which shows
> such a blatant misunderstanding of what business
> cycles are it is pathetic. If business cycles
> were so exactly defined we'd all be rich.
Hard to read the first sentence; it displays a blatant lack of PUNCTUATION.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hard to read past the first sentence which shows
> such a blatant misunderstanding of what business
> cycles are it is pathetic. If business cycles
> were so exactly defined we'd all be rich.
Hard to read the first sentence; it displays a blatant lack of PUNCTUATION.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 09, 2008 07:35AM
We're not talking about my late-night posting grammar errors. We're talking about how much of a dumbass you are for getting easy concepts like the business cycle totally wrong.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
ferfux
()
Date: June 09, 2008 08:14AM
uh lets not forget that in te 90's it was far easier to get student loans and the cost of tuition had yet to skyrocket. now its much tougher to get loans for further education, As well as the huge wealth gap between rich and poor that exists today
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 09, 2008 09:28AM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, good revisionism. Clinton never moved to cut
> the deficit. He was forced into signing
> Congressional legislation to do so after the
> Contract with America swept the Democrats out of
> Congress.
Uh, in 1993 Clinton and the Democrats pushed through the deficit reduction package. Al Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate. It is often blamed for the Democrats losing control of the Congress in 1994 because the Dems were actually acting RESPONSIBLY!
You need to brush up on the budget
> process... spending authority is only in Congress.
Yes, but the President submits a budget as well. The President's budget and the Congressional budget are usually reconciled. If the President doesn't like what the Congress is proposing, he can veto it. That's why Bush Sr. made his famous "No New Taxes" pledge. Talk about someone who needs to brush up on the budget process.
> It is impossible for a president to "cut the
> deficit." A president can only pass on
> recommendations to do so to the Congress.
>
As I explained, it is within the President's power, especially if his part controls the Congress, to balance the budget.
> I didn't say the Iraq war didn't fully happen
> under Bush's watch, where are you getting that?
> Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had
> it not been for Sept 11.
Who was President on September 11th? Whose Administration ignored warnings from the FBI field offices?
Bush was in office nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred. JFK had only been in office three months when the Bay of Pigs happened. Historians have determined that the Bay of Pigs took place on JFK's watch...and 9/11 occurred on Bush's.
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol, good revisionism. Clinton never moved to cut
> the deficit. He was forced into signing
> Congressional legislation to do so after the
> Contract with America swept the Democrats out of
> Congress.
Uh, in 1993 Clinton and the Democrats pushed through the deficit reduction package. Al Gore cast the deciding vote in the Senate. It is often blamed for the Democrats losing control of the Congress in 1994 because the Dems were actually acting RESPONSIBLY!
You need to brush up on the budget
> process... spending authority is only in Congress.
Yes, but the President submits a budget as well. The President's budget and the Congressional budget are usually reconciled. If the President doesn't like what the Congress is proposing, he can veto it. That's why Bush Sr. made his famous "No New Taxes" pledge. Talk about someone who needs to brush up on the budget process.
> It is impossible for a president to "cut the
> deficit." A president can only pass on
> recommendations to do so to the Congress.
>
As I explained, it is within the President's power, especially if his part controls the Congress, to balance the budget.
> I didn't say the Iraq war didn't fully happen
> under Bush's watch, where are you getting that?
> Certainly he wouldn't have gotten away with it had
> it not been for Sept 11.
Who was President on September 11th? Whose Administration ignored warnings from the FBI field offices?
Bush was in office nearly 9 months when 9/11 occurred. JFK had only been in office three months when the Bay of Pigs happened. Historians have determined that the Bay of Pigs took place on JFK's watch...and 9/11 occurred on Bush's.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: June 09, 2008 09:47PM
Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma City disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the perpertratotors were caught quickly and prosecuted. He never blamed the previous administration.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 09, 2008 11:13PM
Well of course... that would involve an even-handed approach which the fans of this thread have a problem with.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
DeathByCop
()
Date: June 10, 2008 10:50AM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma City
> disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> administration.
"perpertratotors"...LOL!!!!!!
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma City
> disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> administration.
"perpertratotors"...LOL!!!!!!
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 10, 2008 11:45AM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well of course... that would involve an
> even-handed approach which the fans of this thread
> have a problem with.
Blaming Clinton for something that happened on Bush's watch is even-handed?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well of course... that would involve an
> even-handed approach which the fans of this thread
> have a problem with.
Blaming Clinton for something that happened on Bush's watch is even-handed?
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 10, 2008 12:28PM
WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well of course... that would involve an
> > even-handed approach which the fans of this
> thread
> > have a problem with.
>
>
> Blaming Clinton for something that happened on
> Bush's watch is even-handed?
I'll ask it again... where did I state that Clinton was definitively and wholly responsible for something that happened on Bush's watch? I have said causes cross administration boundaries. Now unless you have anything besides name calling to respond with I'll claim PGENS FTW!
-------------------------------------------------------
> pgens Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well of course... that would involve an
> > even-handed approach which the fans of this
> thread
> > have a problem with.
>
>
> Blaming Clinton for something that happened on
> Bush's watch is even-handed?
I'll ask it again... where did I state that Clinton was definitively and wholly responsible for something that happened on Bush's watch? I have said causes cross administration boundaries. Now unless you have anything besides name calling to respond with I'll claim PGENS FTW!
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 10, 2008 12:45PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll ask it again... where did I state that
> Clinton was definitively and wholly responsible
> for something that happened on Bush's watch? I
> have said causes cross administration boundaries.
> Now unless you have anything besides name calling
> to respond with I'll claim PGENS FTW!
"and the causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton."
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'll ask it again... where did I state that
> Clinton was definitively and wholly responsible
> for something that happened on Bush's watch? I
> have said causes cross administration boundaries.
> Now unless you have anything besides name calling
> to respond with I'll claim PGENS FTW!
"and the causes of that were almost wholly under Clinton."
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 10, 2008 12:56PM
Can you not read? Do you know what an attributive adjective is? Because you missed one in my statement you quoted, dummy.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 10, 2008 01:05PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you not read? Do you know what an attributive
> adjective is? Because you missed one in my
> statement you quoted, dummy.
Yes I can. Using "almost" to somehow qualify your use of a definitive word like "wholly" is a bullshit, chicken shit move on your part. It's like saying "Hitler was almost 100 percent responsible for the Holocaust." The "almost" becomes superfluous.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can you not read? Do you know what an attributive
> adjective is? Because you missed one in my
> statement you quoted, dummy.
Yes I can. Using "almost" to somehow qualify your use of a definitive word like "wholly" is a bullshit, chicken shit move on your part. It's like saying "Hitler was almost 100 percent responsible for the Holocaust." The "almost" becomes superfluous.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 10, 2008 01:25PM
lol you fail, nice try.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 10, 2008 01:57PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol you fail, nice try.
Afraid not.
-------------------------------------------------------
> lol you fail, nice try.
Afraid not.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
pgens
()
Date: June 10, 2008 03:13PM
.
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: June 10, 2008 03:32PM
pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .
-------------------------------------------------------
> .
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Timmy
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:12PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma City
> disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> administration.
NO logic in the world would lead one to blame the OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the reason it took place on the Waco anniversary. Do you drive or just ride on the short bus?
-------------------------------------------------------
> Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma City
> disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> administration.
NO logic in the world would lead one to blame the OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the reason it took place on the Waco anniversary. Do you drive or just ride on the short bus?
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Dude
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:26PM
This is why I always knew this election would be a close one, in spite of the incredibly bad government we've had for the last eight years--people see what they want to see.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
WashingToneLocian
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:53PM
Dude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why I always knew this election would be a
> close one, in spite of the incredibly bad
> government we've had for the last eight
> years--people see what they want to see.
Typical Republican...
"I got a $600 check for George W. Bush so I got my tax cut and I am happy."
Are you paying more for gas then ever?
"Yes."
Did you lose your health insurance?
"Yes."
Did you lose your good paying job and now have to work in a minimum wage service industry job?
"Yes."
Did your kids drop out of college because they can't afford it?
"Yes."
Did your son get killed in Iraq?
"Yes."
Is your house in foreclosure?
"Yes"
Are you disappointed that Bush has done absolutely nothing about God, guns or gays?
"Yes."
Are you having problems paying your bills because prices have gone up?
"Yes. But I'm gonna vote Republican because I got a $600 check from George W. Bush."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 02:54PM by WashingToneLocian.
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why I always knew this election would be a
> close one, in spite of the incredibly bad
> government we've had for the last eight
> years--people see what they want to see.
Typical Republican...
"I got a $600 check for George W. Bush so I got my tax cut and I am happy."
Are you paying more for gas then ever?
"Yes."
Did you lose your health insurance?
"Yes."
Did you lose your good paying job and now have to work in a minimum wage service industry job?
"Yes."
Did your kids drop out of college because they can't afford it?
"Yes."
Did your son get killed in Iraq?
"Yes."
Is your house in foreclosure?
"Yes"
Are you disappointed that Bush has done absolutely nothing about God, guns or gays?
"Yes."
Are you having problems paying your bills because prices have gone up?
"Yes. But I'm gonna vote Republican because I got a $600 check from George W. Bush."
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/26/2008 02:54PM by WashingToneLocian.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Radiophile
()
Date: August 26, 2008 02:56PM
Timmy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma
> City
> > disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> > perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> > prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> > administration.
>
> NO logic in the world would lead one to blame the
> OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols
> bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for
> Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the
> reason it took place on the Waco anniversary. Do
> you drive or just ride on the short bus?
In retrospect, true. Hindsight is 20/20. But Clinton never made any reference to fault, and immediately after the bombings he was asked if it was foriegn terrorists - and his reply was he did not know and the perpetrators would be bought to justice quickly. It happened.
in contrast.....
-------------------------------------------------------
> Radiophile Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma
> City
> > disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> > perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> > prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> > administration.
>
> NO logic in the world would lead one to blame the
> OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols
> bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for
> Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the
> reason it took place on the Waco anniversary. Do
> you drive or just ride on the short bus?
In retrospect, true. Hindsight is 20/20. But Clinton never made any reference to fault, and immediately after the bombings he was asked if it was foriegn terrorists - and his reply was he did not know and the perpetrators would be bought to justice quickly. It happened.
in contrast.....
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Timmy
()
Date: August 26, 2008 04:09PM
Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Timmy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma
> > City
> > > disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> > > perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> > > prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> > > administration.
> >
> > NO logic in the world would lead one to blame
> the
> > OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols
> > bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for
> > Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the
> > reason it took place on the Waco anniversary.
> Do
> > you drive or just ride on the short bus?
>
>
> In retrospect, true. Hindsight is 20/20. But
> Clinton never made any reference to fault, and
> immediately after the bombings he was asked if it
> was foriegn terrorists - and his reply was he did
> not know and the perpetrators would be bought to
> justice quickly. It happened.
>
> in contrast.....
Well, McVeigh made it easy. Last I checked, bin Laden wasn't caught on a US highway driving without a license plate. Either way, your analogy doesn't work.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Timmy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Radiophile Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Under this logic, we can blake the Oklahoma
> > City
> > > disaster on Bush. But, under clinton, the
> > > perpertratotors were caught quickly and
> > > prosecuted. He never blamed the previous
> > > administration.
> >
> > NO logic in the world would lead one to blame
> the
> > OK City bombings on Bush. McVeigh and Nichols
> > bombed the Murrah building in retaliation for
> > Clinton/Reno's handling of Waco. Hence, the
> > reason it took place on the Waco anniversary.
> Do
> > you drive or just ride on the short bus?
>
>
> In retrospect, true. Hindsight is 20/20. But
> Clinton never made any reference to fault, and
> immediately after the bombings he was asked if it
> was foriegn terrorists - and his reply was he did
> not know and the perpetrators would be bought to
> justice quickly. It happened.
>
> in contrast.....
Well, McVeigh made it easy. Last I checked, bin Laden wasn't caught on a US highway driving without a license plate. Either way, your analogy doesn't work.
Re: The Countries "Clintonian Misery"
Posted by:
Timmy
()
Date: August 26, 2008 06:40PM
Plus, I am gay, so stop picking on me.
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?
I am so gay horny for Radiophile, why must be a hetero?