• 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
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where in the constitution or our laws does it say we can use US troops on civillians?

Hint look around the kent state incident.
Click to expand...

That might be a worthwhile point if it had anything at all to do with the subject to which I was responding.
 
J-Lo Biafra w/ Lard

...Your favourite metalhead and mine
Child-molesting freak

Used Seven Seals to scare his flock
So he could sin
Defiled young girls beneath
Posters of Megadeth
But then...

They tried to take his guns
They tried to take his guns

Coulda grabbed him when he's out jogging
Or scamming chicks in bars

But oh no

They brought S.W.A.T. teams and tanks
Waco's a sign
One-World Government
...
Click to expand...
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Ad homs? Show me where Clinton violated any laws? One shred of evidence? One conviction? None? I thought so. What court convicted him of such? Baseless allegation. Posse Communitattus was not violated.

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....
Click to expand...

One more baseless allegation.It was done to please the cries Ehud Barack and the Israelis. There were no grounds to indite him on. AT ALL.

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

What a fool? Elians legal guardian was his father the moment his mother died. His family had no standing. At all. Had Elian been an adult you would have been right. However he was a minor. Seems like you're the fool here.

Where was the supreme court case that demanded that Elian be returned?
Click to expand...

Don't need one. His father was the legal guardian. NOT his uncle in Miami. Once again you have no to stand on. Neither did his family. Why keep trying?

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:
Click to expand...

Lol silly ad homs. Let's see here. You claim Clinton violated Posse Communitattus. However you can't prove this. Or even provide one ruling that says he did. TOT was crushed when he insinuated such. You claim he was a traitor. Yet you can't provide a single bit of evidence to support this. You blamed him for Ruby Ridge. Yet he wasn't even president when it happened. Why am I not surprised you'd be this misinformed? Why keep trying? Elian was a minor. Wet feet dry feet has nothing to do with who was Elians legal guardian. It has been pointed out to you and TOT repeatedly. Yet you keep ignoring it. Why? Why lie so much when all it takes is a quick search? Had Elians mother lived, she would have been his legal guardian. After her death his father became the legal guardian. Not his family in Miami. Get informed.

Adding : Ad homs and "I caught you misspelling! hahah!" only make you look even cornier. Kid Jr.
 
Last edited:
Iriemon said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get it Iremon, and all that you said is true. It just annoys me a bit when I see someon erefusing to take responsibility for being dead wrong about an issue, when I'm certain one knows it, only because one is so caught up in partisan bs that the person refuses to acknowledge the truth. Holding onto an incorrect position just because of partisan hate is nonsensical. I will continue to point this out whenever I see it, even if the person continues to 'pretend' he doesn't get it.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
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.....





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....






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?





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:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
'The Reverend' needs to stop with the personal attacks and insulting.
 
Hatuey said:
Why must you hold on to this fallacy? It has already been shown to you multiple number of times. That no rights were violated. That the Davidians acted irrationally when a weapons investigation into whether they had illegal weapons started up? You have every right to own a gun. If you live in a state where the gun you own is banned but every other gun is not banned your rights are not being infringed. You still have the right to bear arms. The constitution says nothing about which type of arms.
Click to expand...

I don't think that defending your property when paramilitaries dressed in battle fatigue with automatic weapons in order to execute an unconstitutional arrest warrant is acting irrationally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Rich


Once again. IRRELEVANT. Elian Gonzales was a minor. His father(who you keep ignoring was his LEGAL GUARDIAN) asked for his return. Elian was a minor and therefor could not file for any type of asylum. Keep trying.
Click to expand...

Not irrelevant the wet foot dry foot policy is there for a reason (and even that is bad policy it should be a get off the Island policy but we can thank Clinton for that one too) and that is to insure that those who make it to the U.S. will not be sent back to live under the totalitarian dictatorship of the tyrant Castro, the fact that he was a minor was even more of a reason to protect him from that fate, but instead Clinton sent attack squads into a private residence to kidnap the kid and hand him over to the tyrannical Castro regime.
 
Cephus said:
It was perfectly legal, hence it couldn't be murder,
Click to expand...

It's legal to use the military on our own citizens? It's legal to excecute unconstituional warrants designed to deny people their 2nd amendment rights?

no matter how desperately you wish it was. Heck, at the time, I was thinking they should have called out a couple of A-10s and let them do bombing runs, but in the end, those religious lunatics in Waco killed themselves and they deserved it.
Click to expand...

Yep people deserve to die for excersing their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. And I'm sure you did think that they should have used A-10s to bomb U.S. citizens for excercising their Constitutional rights, that is because you are a traitor.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
I don't think that defending your property when paramilitaries dressed in battle fatigue with automatic weapons in order to execute an unconstitutional arrest warrant is acting irrationally.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant since the warrant was constitutional.

Not irrelevant the wet foot dry foot policy is there for a reason (and even that is bad policy it should be a get off the Island policy but we can thank Clinton for that one too) and that is to insure that those who make it to the U.S. will not be sent back to live under the totalitarian dictatorship of the tyrant Castro, the fact that he was a minor was even more of a reason to protect him from that fate, but instead Clinton sent attack squads into a private residence to kidnap the kid and hand him over to the tyrannical Castro regime.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant where the kid came from. His illegal status is the issue, and the status of his custody. Or are you advocating for amnesty for illegal aliens, TOT?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
It's legal to use the military on our own citizens? It's legal to excecute unconstituional warrants designed to deny people their 2nd amendment rights?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant since the warrant was issued within the framework of the 4th Amendment and the 2nd was not violated. Are you getting it yet, or must I continue to post this, showing that you are wrong, endlessly? You're a smart fellow, TOT. I'm certain you know you are wrong, but continue to adhere to this fallacious position because you refuse to lose face or because you are blindly partisan. These are the only possibilities.
 
Maybe this will put a stop to” wet feet dry feet”.:mrgreen:

Court win for Cuban dad in custody case

By LAURA WIDES-MUNOZ, AP Hispanic Affairs Writer Thu Sep 27, 4:47 PM ET
MIAMI - A 5-year-old Cuban girl at the center of an international custody dispute should be returned to her father, unless separating the child from her Miami foster parents would cause her extreme harm, a judge ruled Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070927/ap_on_re_us/cuban_custody_dispute
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant since the warrant was constitutional.
Click to expand...

The warrant was in pursuance of an unconstitutional objective; furthermore, where are all these supposedly illegal guns? They never existed.


Irrelevant where the kid came from. His illegal status is the issue, and the status of his custody. Or are you advocating for amnesty for illegal aliens, TOT?
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as an illegal Cuban immigrant that's the whole damn point they are all considered political refugees and it used to be an escape off the island policy that is until the tyrant Clinton came to power.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Irrelevant since the warrant was issued within the framework of the 4th Amendment and the 2nd was not violated. Are you getting it yet, or must I continue to post this, showing that you are wrong, endlessly? You're a smart fellow, TOT. I'm certain you know you are wrong, but continue to adhere to this fallacious position because you refuse to lose face or because you are blindly partisan. These are the only possibilities.
Click to expand...

You can't issue a warrant to pursue an unconstitutional act. It's like saying that they arrested me for excercising my free speech but hay they had a warrant so it's all perfectly legit. The bottom line is that the Clinton administration violated Posse Comitatus and murdered its own citizens for excercising their Constitutional rights.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
The warrant was in pursuance of an unconstitutional objective; furthermore, where are all these supposedly illegal guns? They never existed.
Click to expand...

Didn't I post evidence that some of the Davidians had been charged/convicted with firing automatic firearms on federal agents?

There's no such thing as an illegal Cuban immigrant that's the whole damn point they are all considered political refugees and it used to be an escape off the island policy that is until the tyrant Clinton came to power.
Click to expand...

Which all becomes irrelevant as soon as you realize that Elian Gonzales was a minor who under U.S. law can not file for asylum. His LEGAL GUARDIAN asked for his return. Wet feet, dry feet has nothing to do with Elians return. His family had no legal power to stop his LEGAL GUARDIAN from taking Elian back to Cuba. Had both of Elians LEGAL GUARDIANS died, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However his father(A.K.A. Elian's LEGAL GUARDIAN) wanted Elian to return with him. Wet foot, dry foot has nothing to do with the issue. It's a misdirect. Elian could have stayed of course had he been an adult and not a minor under the legal guardianship of his father.
 
Hatuey said:
Didn't I post evidence that some of the Davidians had been charged/convicted with firing automatic firearms on federal agents?
Click to expand...

You didn't present one scrap of evidence of these altered machine guns because that would be physically impossible as the FBI destroyed them before the trial began, regardless that court decision was overturned by the SCOTUS.


Which all becomes irrelevant as soon as you realize that Elian Gonzales was a minor who under U.S. law can not file for asylum. His LEGAL GUARDIAN asked for his return. Wet feet, dry feet has nothing to do with Elians return. His family had no legal power to stop his LEGAL GUARDIAN from taking Elian back to Cuba. Had both of Elians LEGAL GUARDIANS died, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. However his father(A.K.A. Elian's LEGAL GUARDIAN) wanted Elian to return with him. Wet foot, dry foot has nothing to do with the issue. It's a misdirect. Elian could have stayed of course had he been an adult and not a minor under the legal guardianship of his father.
Click to expand...

First of all the assault team was sent into to kidnap the boy before any court hearing took place, and second of all the fact that he was a minor is all the more reason to keep him out of the clutches of the totalitarian and brutal tyrant Castro, it's analogous to sending a kid back to Nazi Germany.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You can't issue a warrant to pursue an unconstitutional act. It's like saying that they arrested me for excercising my free speech but hay they had a warrant so it's all perfectly legit. The bottom line is that the Clinton administration violated Posse Comitatus and murdered its own citizens for excercising their Constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

1. Banning certain types of weapons do not infringe on your constitutional right.
2. Arresting somebody for excercising free speech would be unconstitutional.
3. You not having the right to own certain types of weapons does not violate our constitution in any way shape or form.
4. Serving a warrant after having enough reason to believe there are people braking the law by owning banned weapons, is not unconstitutional.
5.Clinton did not violate Posse Commitattus.


- Now...as soon as you provide evidence that banning automatic weapons and other types while allowing the citizens to own every other gun out there somehow infringes on your right to bear arms, we can get back to the issue at hand.

- As soon as you give just one court ruling that shows that Clinton violated Posse Commitattus, we'll get back to the issue.

Until then...please refrain from posting :) You'll just keep digging and digging.
 
Hatuey said:
1. Banning certain types of weapons do not infringe on your constitutional right.
2. Arresting somebody for excercising free speech would be unconstitutional.
3. You not having the right to own certain types of weapons does not violate our constitution in any way shape or form.
4. Serving a warrant after having enough reason to believe there are people braking the law by owning banned weapons, is not unconstitutional.
5.Clinton did not violate Posse Commitattus.


- Now...as soon as you provide evidence that banning automatic weapons and other types while allowing the citizens to own every other gun out there somehow infringes on your right to bear arms, we can get back to the issue at hand.

- As soon as you give just one court ruling that shows that Clinton violated Posse Commitattus, we'll get back to the issue.

Until then...please refrain from posting :) You'll just keep digging and digging.
Click to expand...


Where are these illegally modified automatic weapons or proof that they ever existed?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You didn't present one scrap of evidence of these altered machine guns because that would be physically impossible as the FBI destroyed them before the trial began, regardless that court decision was overturned by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I did considering how you replied to it with some non sequitur about them not owning the guns.

First of all the assault team was sent into to kidnap the boy before any court hearing took place, and second of all the fact that he was a minor is all the more reason to keep him out of the clutches of the totalitarian and brutal tyrant Castro, it's analogous to sending a kid back to Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

Why engage in more misdirection? Elians LEGAL GUARDIAN was his father. Wet foot dry foot policy is relevant to adults who make it through to U.S. soil and can file with asylum on behalf of themselves and their children. If the child's legal guardian wants his/her kid to go back to wherever the hell in Cuba they came from. There is little you can do to stop it. That's the legal guardians right and perogative.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
You didn't present one scrap of evidence of these altered machine guns because that would be physically impossible as the FBI destroyed them before the trial began, regardless that court decision was overturned by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Court findings in the Branch Davidian incident :

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Tax Cops/Waco/Trial/Sentencing Findings

1. Davidians shot first.
2. The warrant was LAWFUL.

At about 9:00 a.m. on that fateful morning, as agents attempted
>to execute a lawful search warrant, the first shots were fired
>from inside the front door of the Compound, wounding Agent
>Ballesteros in his hand. Immediately thereafter, countless shots
>were fired from many locations in different areas of the
>Compound, and a gun battle lasting approximately two and one-half
>hours ensued.
Click to expand...

2. Davidians were fvcking lunatics who were killing eachother :

> Thereafter, for 51 days these Defendants and their co-
>conspirators defied federal authority and refused to surrender.
>Finally, by a combination of suicide and murder inflicted by
>Davidian upon Davidian, all but a handful of the Davidians were
>killed.
Click to expand...

4. They had illegal firearms

Defendants Branch, Whitecliff, Castillo, Fagan, and Avraam stand
>convicted of aiding and abetting in the voluntary manslaughter of
>four federal agents, and in using or carrying a firearm during
>the commission of an act of violence. Defendant Craddock stands

page 2

>convicted of possession of an unregistered grenade and in using
>or carrying a firearm during the commission of an act of
>violence. Defendant Riddle stands convicted of using or carrying
>a firearm during the commission of an act of violence. Defendant
>Fatta stands convicted of two counts of possessing illegal
>firearms.
Click to expand...

5. They had automatic weapons :

> Such reasoning would clearly be applicable to the facts in this
>case. The evidence established the existence of not only a
>figurative but a literal fortress, manned by each of the
>Defendants convicted on this count. Each either had actual or
>constructive possession of the numerous fully automatic weapons
>and hand grenades present in the Compound before February 28,
>1993 and through the 51 day siege.
Click to expand...

First of all the assault team was sent into to kidnap the boy before any court hearing took place, and second of all the fact that he was a minor is all the more reason to keep him out of the clutches of the totalitarian and brutal tyrant Castro, it's analogous to sending a kid back to Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...

His country's situation is irrelevant. His legal guardian had every right to take Elian to where he wanted. Once again. His right and perogative.
 
Hatuey said:
Court findings in the Branch Davidian incident :

http://www.hoboes.com/pub/Politics/Tax Cops/Waco/Trial/Sentencing Findings

1. Davidians shot first.
2. The warrant was LAWFUL.



2. Davidians were fvcking lunatics who were killing eachother :



4. They had illegal firearms



5. They had automatic weapons :
Click to expand...

There was never one scrap of evidence presented at court that they had illegal firearms and the decision was overturned by the SCOTUS, you just keep paroting the propaganda, the FBI said they destroyed the guns which is why they could not present them at court.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm pretty sure I did considering how you replied to it with some non sequitur about them not owning the guns.
Click to expand...

Sorry but the FBI said they destroyed the evidence, they never presented it at court, and the SCOTUS overturned the decision.

Why engage in more misdirection? Elians LEGAL GUARDIAN was his father. Wet foot dry foot policy is relevant to adults who make it through to U.S. soil and can file with asylum on behalf of themselves and their children. If the child's legal guardian wants his/her kid to go back to wherever the hell in Cuba they came from. There is little you can do to stop it. That's the legal guardians right and perogative.
Click to expand...

So you would support sending a kid to Nazi Germany?
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Sorry but the FBI said they destroyed the evidence, they never presented it at court, and the SCOTUS overturned the decision.
Click to expand...

Once again...Davidians convicted...of owning illegal firearms...proves...they had them....

So you would support sending a kid to Nazi Germany?
Click to expand...

If thats what his/her LEGAL guardian wanted? Sure why not. But comparing Cuba to Nazi Germany is a far stretch at best. Unless of course you want to insinuate that Cuba has been silently conquering the Caribean and South America for the last 48 years.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Once again there was never evidence of that and the decision was overturned by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...

Let me say this for the 4,000th time. Perhaps you will get it. It...is...irrelevant...whether...illegal... firearms... were...found...in...regards...to...the...legality...of...the...search ...warrant. That...is...why...an...investigation...occurs...to...investigate... illegal...acts.

I don't think it is possible to be more clear. Please stay on topic and explain why it would be unconstitutional to determine IF an illegal act has occurred.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Let me say this for the 4,000th time. Perhaps you will get it. It...is...irrelevant...whether...illegal... firearms... were...found...in...regards...to...the...legality...of...the...search ...warrant. That...is...why...an...investigation...occurs...to...investigate... illegal...acts.

I don't think it is possible to be more clear. Please stay on topic and explain why it would be unconstitutional to determine IF an illegal act has occurred.
Click to expand...

LOL "talk to the hand"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom