Exactly. There was no peace during the Clinton years. The Clinton Administration simply ignored the threats. We were attacked multiple times, and Clinton did not respond. And Clinton increased the danger to our country, and the West in general by giving the Chinese access to high-tech space technology. And opening access to our labratories to people who have no business having access to it.

The Democrats in America are totally blind and oblivious to our own national security. By the way, George Bush has placed sanctions on the very same Chinese companies that the Clinton Administration helped. Ain't it sad that these same companies, owned by the Chinese government, have been proliferating technology they got from the Clinton administration. Clinton directly endangered our nation.

Is this sarcasm or what? :roll:

quote]Lewinsky. Is that all you got? Gimme a break :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Downsizing the the U.S. military. Can anyone say Rumsfeld?

NAFTA. You got something there. Corporations bailing on the U.S... Did you happen to know Bush junior had a corporate office in the Kaymans(?) I believe. How unamerican is that?

Firearms ban. Thats up to individual tastes. It has no bearing on anything but personal opinion.


That response is so pathetic it's not even worth responding to.

================================================== =====

Funny I thought I addressed your drool comments. I understand. You are probably embarrassed by your pathetic post. I would be.

Explain what he should have done? I know! We should have invaded Sudan.
Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we. (Actually I didn't know that until I watched a clip today with Condi talking about it) Oh I forgot. Bin Laden is still running free isn't he. Five years after 9/11.
Yes to the Chinese. He should have gone to jail for treason for that.

Is that the reason Bush is giving India nuke technology? One upmanship? Didn't he have some kind of deal with Pakistan too?

Now you're baiting.:down:

I posted an argument instead of sentimental rhetoric.:know:

Answer me directly.:stare:

No baiting. No wishy-washy rhetoric. Just pure and simple fact.:|\\

(washes popcorn down with soda)

Yes, he should have gone in there and got Bin Laden. Exactly. Instead of just sitting there and telling everybody to go back to sleep. Yes, Bill Clinton should have done everything in his power to protect the nation. Like President Bush is trying to do. But in classic Democrat fashion, he ignored the threat. If Clinton had done his job, there would have been no 9/11, bottom line.

And I love how Democrats are on Internet sites trying to convince everybody how effective they are on national security issues. Nobody buys it.

India already has nuclear technology. And I don't remember India threatening to blow up Los Angeles. Nor does India have a massive military build-up aimed at the USA. Brad, this is why Democrats and their fellow travelers cannot be trusted with our national security. It is too important to keep Democrats out of power. You don't understand the damage your people do. You can't even see the difference between the India situation and China. While both have nuclear power, Bush is providing civilian use nuclear assistance to a friendly nation. China is a borderline enemy, who not only has threatened us, but insists it might have to go nuclear first to prevent loss on the Taiwan issue. And Clinton provided not peaceful nuclear technology, but space related assistance. You know, guidance systems, radiation hardening, penetration technology...you know the things that can turn Connecticut and your family into dust. I'm flabbergasted that you seemingly hate Bush so much, you would out and out defend the worst President in American History.....tied with Jimmy Carter. And it is proof that Democrats cannot see the threats. Thus, they are unable to respond as recent history ( the last 40 years) has shown, and your own words prove.

I agree, Bush has failed to get Bin Laden after 5 years and with the (supposed) partnership of the Pakis in the WOT. :nope: That plus the horrible immigration stance gives the Bush Presidency a C- in my book.

Agreed. Bush's stance on border security and his unwillingness to enforce U.S. immigration law is a total failure. If the Democrats would jump on him for it, I would be in agreement with them on that issue. It's a wonder why the Democrats refuse to confront Bush on it as it is indeed a winning issue. With that in mind, it's a wonder why anyone politically won't do anything about it.

I have no doubt that the issue will get solved eventually. It's getting too hot to ignore. It's absolutely not going away. But it is my belief that it will be Republicans eventually who actually do something about it. The Republicans at least have people like Steve King, Tom Tancredo, and John Doolittle. The Republicans at least have people out there calling for enforcement. I can't think of too many people on the other side who do. Heck, out here in California, the Democrats wanted to give illegal aliens drivers licenses fer cryin' out loud. That's one of the main reasons we now have a Republican governor. The California Republican Party basically put a stop to that "drivers license for illegals" nonsense.

No votes = No balls = no action


It's a hate/love relationship b/w voters and politicking beaureaucrats now.:down:

Also, have any of you heard of "Super Slab"?

This thing has already been started in Texas and the state is now using eminent domain to seize a swath in Colorado that has an easement that is 3 miles wide.

This thing is MASSIVE. They say it'll be 12 lanes across and will stretch from Canada to Mexico. They've already started issuing notices to landowners in the area.

http://www.superslab.org/

The smell of fish abounds here.

Read How the Left Undermined National Security Before 9/11. I suggest reading the whole thing but a good synopsys can be found there under the headings "While the Clinton Administration Slept" and "Why the Clinton Administration Slept". The use of the word "slept" is no coincidence, as you'll also read that:

"By Clinton’s own account, Monica Lewinsky was able to visit him privately more than a dozen times in the Oval Office. But according to a USA Today investigative report, the head of the CIA could not get a single private meeting with the president, despite the World Trade Center bombing of February 26, 1993, or the killing of 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu on October 3 of the same year. “James Woolsey, Clinton’s first CIA director, says he never met privately with Clinton after their initial interview. When a small plane crashed on the White House grounds in 1994, the joke inside the White House was, ‘that must be Woolsey, still trying to get an appointment.’”
Nothing, just like the "economic well being" of those years had nothing to do with Clinton. You hit the nail on the head without even realizing it. Good shot! :rock:

"Down there" (here) is what/where we are talking about. If I wanted to talk about Moose or rioting hocky fans, then I would talk about "Up there".

Hey, give him some credit. He was great at wagging the dog and he did give China some valuable technology and he did waste several million dollars in tomahawks fired at empty desert. Also don't forget how much old Yasser liked him. Wait a minute, (drink more beer) he was right up there with ole Jimmy Carter.:hmm: :rotfl: :rotfl:

I'd say he had his priorities in perfect order. :D

No. I responded to you in like fashion. I had responded to each of your comments and you were at such a loss all you could say was "That response is so pathetic it's not even worth responding to.". You tried to be slick but weren't.
Presidents and Mistresses:
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/text/puzzle11ans.html
Incase you are wondering two are democrats and three were republicans. So you see there is nothing new. Not angelic but nothing new. How much money and time did the republicans put into trying to impeach a president over a blow job? (Doesn't that sound stupid?) I can't seem to remember, was he found guilty or innocent?
Kind of like Whitewater. Republicans spent billions of our tax dollars and wasted so much goverment time trying to burn the Clintons on that and came up with a big fat zero. They couldn't deal with him in politics so they tried anything else they could dream up. Now that was pathetic. So we know republicans were not thinking of America, but were intent on a selfish quest for power in which they failed miserably.

Yep, I remember that. With his brother as go-between. Sold them for money.
To be true in some parts of industry union greed played a part. But the larger issue is corporate greed. Cheap labor in foreign downtrodden countries. Todays corporations have allegience to the dollar and their bank accounts not to America. I did mention our president using the Caymanns as a corporate headquarters in order to not pay tax dollars didn't I?
Think about this for a minute. What would have happened if we openly agreed to it. That would push China into attacking. That is why even Bush has not officialy changed that stance. In some things discretion is the better part of valor.
He downsized the military for a smaller leaner balanced force. Rumsfeld wanted to cut into the meat.
Clinton also wanted to have less goverment. Something republicans are always up for. What makes Clintons attempts at smaller goverment bad?
Clinton tried bribing them into compliance. We do that a lot. Under Bush for six years they have the bomb and intermediate launch platforms.
Oh! I didn't know Hezbolla and terrorism came after the Oslo Accords. Here I thought it was an attempt for a peaceful reolution. You can read about it here to refresh your memory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

If you got rid of your firearms you can come to Connecticut. We have gun shops all over the place.
What the heck do we have to do with Rwanda? I didn't know it was a state. It's not. Isn't that what the U.N. is for?
I wonder why Bush hasn't done anything with Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Congo? Or do you have special rules for republican administrations?

Lets not forget that 30 days before 9/11 Bush had a security brief that bin Laden was planning an attack within the U.S. shall we, or the fact that building terrorism was a constant in his daily National Security brief's.
Also lets not forget that the information was their but the dots were not connected. Probably using available intellegence assets to try and find a reason to attack Iraq.
I'm really disappointed in your use of http://www.frontpagemag.com/index.asp. That's the right's version of Pravda it looks like. Usually you are solid. I read a sentence here and there but it was so obviously biased. Try an partially unbiased source. Like the ads though.
What does fruit cake have to do with space ships? Damn'd if I know but you are useing the same type of reasoning.
Oh okay who had it to do with then? Donald Duck?
Come on AL you are scrambling.

You can bet on that. :up:

Time for Skybird to settle this thread once and for all :smug: :

http://www.welt.de/data/2006/09/11/1032282.html
http://disembedded.wordpress.com/200...l-predecessor/

and

http://www.gatago.com/soc/culture/usa/14299380.html

About Dean Keith Simonton (first two entries above):
http://www.psych.sjsu.edu/sparc/abou...s/simonton.pdf
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/Simonton/

The relation is what counts, not the absolute IQ values which i do question, and very much so. They are certainly tuned way to high, which may come as a result of this certain method of examination, instead of doing life real-world IQ-tests.

I like that student-evaluation thing in Simonton's biography. Could we have that twice a year for board administrators and moderators, too? :know: :D

OUTSTANDING SKYBIRD!!! Great find!!! :up:

I always knew Bush was an idot and that proves it!!!

Heeees baaaack:doh: