• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Bill Clinton vs George W. Bush

VOTE NOW! Bill Clinton vs. George W. Bush

  • Bill Clinton

    Votes: 35 76.1%

  • George W. Bush

    Votes: 11 23.9%
  • Total voters
    46
disneydude said:
And now....I bring you.....
Click to expand...

A bunch of ad hominem garbage. I have to admit you are consistent in that you don't discuss the subject nor the respond to the post though.
 
Gibberish said:
To me it matters on what that something was that was being done. If that something is a terrible idea and leads to failure then I would rather the President think about it then actually do it.
Click to expand...

Everything that GWB touches fails. You would have thought that people would have seen that prior to voting for him.
 
disneydude said:
I am assuming that you are referring to your psychic hotline post?
Click to expand...

disney I have no interest in one our your childish ad hominem tangents.
 
Stinger said:
disney I have no interest in one our your childish ad hominem tangents.
Click to expand...

Hey...Sorry Stinger. You were the one that made the post expressing your psychic abilities. The other responses were simply in response to your unwillingness to defend your own post. That said.....
 
cal02ruk1.jpg
 
Iriemon said:
How about this more likely scenario:

9-11 never happens because Clinton was far more concerned about Bin Laden than passing deficit causing tax cuts and taking vacation, and puts the airports on alert when increased AQ activity an a plot involving airplanes is reported.
Click to expand...

You're completely delusional, Bush was far more concerned with OBL than Clinton:

The first point, I think the overall point is, there was no
plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton
administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a
strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there
were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they
remained on the table when that administration went out of
office--issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in
Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy, changing our
policy towards Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming
Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy.

They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not
been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided
then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One,
vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the
lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to
some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there
were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in
effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is
to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been
on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.
So, point five, that process which was initiated in the
first week in February, decided in principle, in the spring
to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA
resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go
after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies--and you had
to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late
March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development
of the implementation details of these new decisions that
they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.
Over the course of the summer--last point--they developed
implementation details, the principals met at the end of the
summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the
strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold,
changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on
Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance
assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al
Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to
a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al
Qaeda. This is in fact the time line.

Sen. Frist on "Outrageous Charges by Richard Clarke"
Click to expand...
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're completely delusional, Bush was far more concerned with OBL than Clinton:
Click to expand...

And yet, with all that concern, and billions and billions of dollars later, OBL's head remains attached to his head. What was the closest we ever came to offing that SOB?

All this remembering is hurting my head. I think I need some aspirin.:mrgreen:
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Only if you consider murdering U.S. citizens using military provided weapons for excercising their Constitutional rights to be within legal boundaries than ya sure.
Click to expand...

Must I smack you and make you look silly on this thread, too? Nothing to do with violating 2nd Amendment rights. Everything to do with the Branch Davidians not adhering to the 4th Amendment.
 
Interestingly the poll as of this morning (9-27-07) shows almost 80% of DP voters choosing Clinton...which is probably the play it would play out in a real election.

Bush is so unpopular he would lose to CHENEY! :rofl
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Must I smack you and make you look silly on this thread, too? Nothing to do with violating 2nd Amendment rights. Everything to do with the Branch Davidians not adhering to the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

You can't issue a warrant to perform an unconstitutional act, it would be like issuing a warrant to arrest me for excercising my 1st amendment right.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You can't issue a warrant to perform an unconstitutional act, it would be like issuing a warrant to arrest me for excercising my 1st amendment right.
Click to expand...

Sure you can, all you have to do is find a judge who will sign it. Surely you can't be that foolish, can you?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And if the state tries to do that then I have every right to resist by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry...how does an investigation as to whether or not you own illegal firearms infringe on your right to bear every other legal firearm around? This is like saying that an investigation into weather or not some of your artwork is illegal child porn infringes on the right of every other artist that works with children. There is obviously a gap between A and B in your reasoning. Non sequitur.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You're completely delusional, Bush was far more concerned with OBL than Clinton:
Click to expand...

The fact that Clinton woudl actually put airport security on alert after receiving the daily presidential briefing memo warning that AQ was determined to attack and probably by hijacking aircraft is certainly not beyond the scope of reasonable speculation, IMO.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Must I smack you and make you look silly on this thread, too? Nothing to do with violating 2nd Amendment rights. Everything to do with the Branch Davidians not adhering to the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...

Cap, don't you get it by now?

TOT's position has nothing to do with the second amendment.

It has nothing to do with whether they had illegal machine guns.

It has nothing to do with warrants or the 4th amendment.

There is only one issue that matters when it comes to TOT.

Look at who was president at the time.

If it had been Bush who was president he'd by writing posts about the ****ing idiot moron DemocRATs traitors who might dare suggest anything improper was done, and would be arguing instead that they should have just naped the place.

You are trying to use reason and logic with someone whose only perspective is obsessively partisan politics.
 
Iriemon said:
The fact that Clinton woudl actually put airport security on alert after receiving the daily presidential briefing memo warning that AQ was determined to attack and probably by hijacking aircraft is certainly not beyond the scope of reasonable speculation, IMO.
Click to expand...

Bush did put Federal Agencies on alert so get your facts straight.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bush did put Federal Agencies on alert so get your facts straight.
Click to expand...

And that included airport security?

It's not that I think you are untrustworthy. It's just that I don't believe you. But a link might change my mind.
 
PolarComposite said:
And yet, with all that concern, and billions and billions of dollars later, OBL's head remains attached to his head. What was the closest we ever came to offing that SOB?

All this remembering is hurting my head. I think I need some aspirin.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Yep his head is still attached somewhere between Afganistan and Pakistan border. Saddam was an evil man, no doubt. There was no al-qadui in Iran when Saddam was in power. He didn't like OBL. But the country that should have been attacked is Saudi Arabia where OBL was trained.
 
Hatuey said:
Within legal boundries. Already proven to TOT who is a much better debater then yourself.
Click to expand...


What a tool.


Special forces circiling a US residence in blackhawks is not within the Posse commitatus act.


IT would not matter if I was better than TOT or not. Still roll you like a cigarette lucy.....


Done to please our Israeli allies and their Prime minister Ehud Barack. No grounds to indite him. At all. Keep trying.
Click to expand...


Hey comic book hero. Prove this. Its funn cause the Good Reverend thought it had to do more with Iranian oil deals and his wife blowing democrat donations onto kklintons cod piece....



Illegal alien. Who was a minor. His family had no standing on the issue. His legal guardian was his father(after his mother died). Taking him where his legal guardian wanted was perfecly rational. No traitor.
Click to expand...


What a fool. What happens when a cuban steps foot on American soil?


Where was the supreme court case that demanded that Elian be returned?

Why keep spewing lies that you know will only expose you for the deranged neo-con that you "is" ?

Me thinks the Reverend needs to go back in his whole now.
Click to expand...



The Good Reverend is "Whole" perhaps you were thinking he lived in a "hole" like you crawled out of. I assure you his domicile is a 5000 sqft centerhall colonial. ;)



Sad that you have to refer to such a sophomoric debate style.... IS this how you became a level 7 dungeon master? :lol:
 
Iriemon said:
Which court decision held the Davidians had been exercising constititional rights?
Click to expand...


Where in the constitution or our laws does it say we can use US troops on civillians?

Hint look around the kent state incident.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Must I smack you and make you look silly on this thread, too? Nothing to do with violating 2nd Amendment rights. Everything to do with the Branch Davidians not adhering to the 4th Amendment.
Click to expand...



arrr Captian..... The violation in question here is using .mil on US citizens....


The rest we can debate also. But lets start here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom