wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:13 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 8:06 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:18 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:59 pm, hk wrote:
harry, no pres, had done anything about immigration control all the
way back to FDR and before.
really now, isn't blaming Bush about immigration sort of a lame
arguement?
Tim, that's not true. The first big illegal immigrant amnesty I recall
was perpetrated by Ronnie Raygun.
As for blaming Bush, well, he *has* ben *the man* for the past seven+
years, and he's done nothing about it, along with the many other sores
tasking this country about which he has done nothing.
He was just following the example set by his immediate predecessor,
Clinton. Clinton the accomplish nothing president.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Oh sure he did, Billary sold our missle and nuke tech to the Chinese
military for 3million in late illegal campaign contributions which put
him over the top the second time around.. Of course after saturating
the west coast with the money and winning the election, they "noticed"
the problem and returned the money OOOOPs..
Back to the real world: Clinton one the second time around because he
was popular and because his opponent was a lousy presidential candidate
and ran a half-assed campaign.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
And they flooded the commercial market with 3 million dollars from the
Chinese Military, and that is a known fact.. period.
"A known fact."

snerk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it is a known fact. That is why Billary apologized and returned
the money.. I am finished, I know you won't accept the facts.


It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to compare
with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.

HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:18 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:59 pm, hk wrote:
harry, no pres, had done anything about immigration control all the
way back to FDR and before.
really now, isn't blaming Bush about immigration sort of a lame
arguement?
Tim, that's not true. The first big illegal immigrant amnesty I recall
was perpetrated by Ronnie Raygun.
As for blaming Bush, well, he *has* ben *the man* for the past seven+
years, and he's done nothing about it, along with the many other sores
tasking this country about which he has done nothing.
He was just following the example set by his immediate predecessor,
Clinton. Clinton the accomplish nothing president.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh sure he did, Billary sold our missle and nuke tech to the Chinese
military for 3million in late illegal campaign contributions which put
him over the top the second time around.. Of course after saturating
the west coast with the money and winning the election, they "noticed"
the problem and returned the money OOOOPs..


Back to the real world: Clinton one the second time around because he
was popular and because his opponent was a lousy presidential candidate
and ran a half-assed campaign.

I want a leader for President, not the life of the party.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 13, 7:18 am, BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Tim wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:59 pm, hk wrote:
harry, no pres, had done anything about immigration control all the
way back to FDR and before.
really now, isn't blaming Bush about immigration sort of a lame
arguement?
Tim, that's not true. The first big illegal immigrant amnesty I recall
was perpetrated by Ronnie Raygun.
As for blaming Bush, well, he *has* ben *the man* for the past seven+
years, and he's done nothing about it, along with the many other sores
tasking this country about which he has done nothing.
He was just following the example set by his immediate predecessor,
Clinton. Clinton the accomplish nothing president.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh sure he did, Billary sold our missle and nuke tech to the Chinese
military for 3million in late illegal campaign contributions which put
him over the top the second time around.. Of course after saturating
the west coast with the money and winning the election, they "noticed"
the problem and returned the money OOOOPs..


Back to the real world: Clinton one the second time around because he
was popular and because his opponent was a lousy presidential
candidate and ran a half-assed campaign.

I want a leader for President, not the life of the party.



Hey...you voted for the current non-leader...

"HK" wrote in message
...


It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to compare
with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.


Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the Clinton years
with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to compare
with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.


Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the Clinton years
with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch




How many U.S. civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks on U.S.
territory during Clinton's administrations? How many military personnel
were killed or horribly injured during Clinton's administrations because
of his ignorance, arrogance, or intellectual laziness?

HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to
compare with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.


Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the Clinton
years with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch



How many U.S. civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks on U.S.
territory during Clinton's administrations? How many military personnel
were killed or horribly injured during Clinton's administrations because
of his ignorance, arrogance, or intellectual laziness?

You can't be so naive as to believe what comes out of your addled brain?
You liberals, excuse me progressives, are always harping about how you
have to look beyond the shores of the US for this or that but, when it
may suite your arguments you pull everything back within our North
American borders.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to
compare with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.


Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the
Clinton years with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch



How many U.S. civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks on U.S.
territory during Clinton's administrations? How many military
personnel were killed or horribly injured during Clinton's
administrations because of his ignorance, arrogance, or intellectual
laziness?

You can't be so naive as to believe what comes out of your addled brain?
You liberals, excuse me progressives, are always harping about how you
have to look beyond the shores of the US for this or that but, when it
may suite your arguments you pull everything back within our North
American borders.


Yes, well, the critical aspect of Bush's presidency was that he was
asleep or on vacation for most of the time before 9-11, ignored advice,
and then proceeded after 9-11 to go after Iraq, the *wrong* country.
Bush is ignorant, arrogant, and intellectually lazy. Hey...those are
pretty much right-wing traits... :)

"HK" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to compare
with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.



Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.
US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the Clinton
years with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch



How many U.S. civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks on U.S.
territory during Clinton's administrations? How many military personnel
were killed or horribly injured during Clinton's administrations because
of his ignorance, arrogance, or intellectual laziness?


How many of those deaths can be also linked back to Clinton's lack of action
during the 1990's?
I am not arguing that Clinton only is responsible, but policy is a
continuum of events, actions or lack of.
Here's one of many history lessons available. All are interesting, but take
special note of the section
regarding "Counterterrorism and Osama bin Laden" and Clinton's lack of
interest in Intelligence gathering, including:

"According to "State of War" written by Pulitzer Prize Wining Author James
Risen, Upon taking power in 1993 the Clinton administration "began slashing
the intelligence budget in search of a Peace dividend, and Bill Clinton
showed almost no interest in intelligence matters"

Intellectually lazy? No, I don't think that of Clinton, but I *do* agree
with ignorance and arrogance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...Administration

Eisboch



One of many "history" lessons.

On Mar 13, 9:00*am, HK wrote:
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...

It doesn't matter. There is nothing Clinton did that begins to
compare with the horrors perpetrated by Dubya.

Some would argue that is because Clinton didn't do much, period.

US interests were attacked many times by terrorists during the
Clinton years with very little action or response on his part.

Eisboch

How many U.S. civilians died as a result of terrorist attacks on U.S.
territory during Clinton's administrations? How many military
personnel were killed or horribly injured during Clinton's
administrations because of his ignorance, arrogance, or intellectual
laziness?

You can't be so naive as to believe what comes out of your addled brain?
*You liberals, excuse me progressives, are always harping about how you
have to look beyond the shores of the US for this or that but, when it
may suite your arguments you pull everything back within our North
American borders.

Yes, well, the critical aspect of Bush's presidency was that he was
asleep or on vacation for most of the time before 9-11, ignored advice,
and then proceeded after 9-11 to go after Iraq, the *wrong* country.
Bush is ignorant, arrogant, and intellectually lazy. Hey...those are
pretty much right-wing traits... *:)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All of that is bull**** until someone knows what Sandy Burglar was
hiding, and why Jamie Garelic was on the 911 commission. Period.. And
btw, who was pres when they blew my friend Steven Tingley and a couple
of hundred other good marines out of their beds in Beruit?

"HK" wrote in message
...


Yes, well, the critical aspect of Bush's presidency was that he was asleep
or on vacation for most of the time before 9-11, ignored advice,


You just described B. Clinton as well, and very accurately.

Eisboch