For All Clinton Lovers

duckattack said:
Bush 2 = scum.
Clinton = scum.
Bush 1 = scum.
Reagan = scum.
Carter = scum (but has redeemed himself quite a bit since leaving office).
Ford = scum.
Nixon = scum.
Johnson = scum.
Kennedy = scum (but damn, Jackie was hot!).
Eisenhower = not quite as scummy as most.
Truman = scum.
FDR = scum...

...a pattern seems to be emerging. But to say that W is any less sleazy than Clinton is simply moronic.
You are right on brother :headbang:
 
John Silver said:
Tony Blair is much worse. Even when talking about Saddam's victims, even then he couldn't wipe that leer off his face. I would love to see him tortured badly over a period of years. This would be the time to bring back the Vatican's torture methods.

Agreed. I can't stand the man. :)
 
Okay, Microsoft donates money, but they had been accused by various people and companies of anti-competitive business actions. Business who do these things are under investigation by the government, regardless who is in the White House. *cough* ENRON! *cough*

Yes, Clinton promised justice for the various terror attacks that had happened during his administration... so has Bush Jr. under Dubya's administration. We haven't caught Osama Bin Laden and we still haven't found any shred of evidence that Saddam's government has anything to do with 9/11. I'm more scared of the PATRIOT Act and Ashcroft than some rag-tag terrorists.
 
Cortavenas said:
yet... any democrat is better than a republican
Typical Democrat Bigotry. :p


Funny how the Left are so "Accepting and kind hearted" when all they can do is spew how evil people who don't fall into step and believe their illogical and ideological beliefs are. :lol:

I'm neither democrat or republican, fwiw. :heh:
 
Bush's record is much longer than that. Vietnam was bullshit anyway, and no president has gone without fucking up anything, and GWB is the worst of them all. Clinton did more for this country than any president recently. And Bush fucks up our economy that CLinton was well on the way to fix.

Steve
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rainking
I got this off another forum.

First of all, I wanted to say that I agree with nikola and dastars about with whom the next world war will be fought if there is one except that I think it will be fought in Southern Russia and Kazakstan rather than Siberia (for the most part) - Southern Russia and Kazakstan have far more oil and resources than Siberia.

Now for the Iraq war. As for the link between 9/11 and Saddam, there is a VERY DEFINITE link between the two but I wouldn't expect many Americans and Europeans to realize it since many seem to have short attention spans and lack knowledge of history, including recent history. To understand the real reason for the war, you have to go back to the first Gulf War. Saddam attacked and conquered Kuwait and was getting ready to invade Eastern Saudi Arabia. Had we just turned our back and ignored him, by those two conquests alone he would have control over more than 75% of the world's oil reserves. With that kind of money and power, he would be able to build an empire that would not only threaten his neighbors but also The West, Russia, and China with war and conquest. This alone was a sufficient reason for us to not only stop him, but also overthrow him. Unfortunately, when Bush Sr. was trying to build the coalition he made many compromises to try to get many people involved in the coalition. One of them was to promise not to conquer Iraq and remove Saddam from power. The first Gulf War was of course successful and Saddam's armies were quickly retreated to Bagdad while rebellions against him took place in Northern and Southern Iraq. We were in the perfect position to finish him off. Unfortunately, because of the promises the Bush Sr. made in building the coalition, the influece of some of the more powerful members of the coalition (notably France and Russia who both had alterior motives for us not conquering Iraq), and the influence of idiots like Colin Powell, we didn't finish off Saddam. As as result, we couldn't just pull our military out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - had we done so, we very well could have had an exact repeat of the Gulf War . Thus, we kept large numbers of troops in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This was THE number one reason why al Quida formed. If you listen to the any of videos or audio tapes of bin Laden and the idiots that follow him, they always mention the stationing of Western troops in Saudia Arabia Remember al Quida is a fairly new organization - it came into existence in 1993, two years after the first Gulf War. Throughout the 90's, al Quida became stronger and carried out more and more terrorist attacks until 9/11, shortly after which time, their stronghold in Afghanistan was overrun. by American forces. Since then, many of their leaders have been captured or killed and the ones who haven't (such as bin Laden) are on the run and will be for the rest of their lives. About a year and a half later, we successfully invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power. If you remembered, one of the things that happened a week or two after Saddam was overthrown was a statement made by Rumsfeld or someelse high up (I think was Rumsfeld) saying that by the end of the Summer, all American military people will be transferred out of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the news media didn't really make a big deal about it but they definitely should have. This was every bit as significant as events such as capturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and overthrowing Saddam. By doing this, we have essentially deprived al Quida of their number one reason for existence and their recruiting and fundraising will defintely suffer. In the years to come, it may very well kill al Quida - especially if we could remove all foreign troops from every country on the Arabian Peninsula including Kuwait. As for the WMD, I do believe that they are there but considering the amount of time and space that Saddam had to hide them, we may never find them. It could be that only Saddam and his sons are the only people who know of their location. They also may be in Syria now. In any case, I think that Bush Jr. used it as an excuse to invade Iraq because the real reason (which I stated above) is too complicated to explain to the general public and because it would make his father look bad. It is DEFINITELY tied in with the war on terrorism, regardless of the existence/non-existence of the WMD.

As for Israel, they are a nation under siege on three sides and if we stopped supporting them, we would see a second holocaust (and probably the "Samson option" excerised against Syria). Anyone who says that Israelis are bullies trying to persecute the "poor Palastinians" is truely an idiot. Money from Syria, Eygpt, and dozens of other Muslim nations is frequently used to fund groups like Hamas. The Palastinians are not working alone.
 
Fuþorc said:
Now for the Iraq war. As for the link between 9/11 and Saddam, there is a VERY DEFINITE link between the two but I wouldn't expect many Americans and Europeans to realize it since many seem to have short attention spans and lack knowledge of history, including recent history. To understand the real reason for the war, you have to go back to the first Gulf War. Saddam attacked and conquered Kuwait and was getting ready to invade Eastern Saudi Arabia. Had we just turned our back and ignored him, by those two conquests alone he would have control over more than 75% of the world's oil reserves. With that kind of money and power, he would be able to build an empire that would not only threaten his neighbors but also The West, Russia, and China with war and conquest. This alone was a sufficient reason for us to not only stop him, but also overthrow him. Unfortunately, when Bush Sr. was trying to build the coalition he made many compromises to try to get many people involved in the coalition. One of them was to promise not to conquer Iraq and remove Saddam from power. The first Gulf War was of course successful and Saddam's armies were quickly retreated to Bagdad while rebellions against him took place in Northern and Southern Iraq. We were in the perfect position to finish him off. Unfortunately, because of the promises the Bush Sr. made in building the coalition, the influece of some of the more powerful members of the coalition (notably France and Russia who both had alterior motives for us not conquering Iraq), and the influence of idiots like Colin Powell, we didn't finish off Saddam. As as result, we couldn't just pull our military out of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia - had we done so, we very well could have had an exact repeat of the Gulf War . Thus, we kept large numbers of troops in both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. This was THE number one reason why al Quida formed. If you listen to the any of videos or audio tapes of bin Laden and the idiots that follow him, they always mention the stationing of Western troops in Saudia Arabia Remember al Quida is a fairly new organization - it came into existence in 1993, two years after the first Gulf War. Throughout the 90's, al Quida became stronger and carried out more and more terrorist attacks until 9/11, shortly after which time, their stronghold in Afghanistan was overrun. by American forces. Since then, many of their leaders have been captured or killed and the ones who haven't (such as bin Laden) are on the run and will be for the rest of their lives. About a year and a half later, we successfully invaded Iraq and removed Saddam from power. If you remembered, one of the things that happened a week or two after Saddam was overthrown was a statement made by Rumsfeld or someelse high up (I think was Rumsfeld) saying that by the end of the Summer, all American military people will be transferred out of Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, the news media didn't really make a big deal about it but they definitely should have. This was every bit as significant as events such as capturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed and overthrowing Saddam. By doing this, we have essentially deprived al Quida of their number one reason for existence and their recruiting and fundraising will defintely suffer. In the years to come, it may very well kill al Quida - especially if we could remove all foreign troops from every country on the Arabian Peninsula including Kuwait. As for the WMD, I do believe that they are there but considering the amount of time and space that Saddam had to hide them, we may never find them. It could be that only Saddam and his sons are the only people who know of their location. They also may be in Syria now. In any case, I think that Bush Jr. used it as an excuse to invade Iraq because the real reason (which I stated above) is too complicated to explain to the general public and because it would make his father look bad. It is DEFINITELY tied in with the war on terrorism, regardless of the existence/non-existence of the WMD.
So this is basically saying that we invaded Iraq to give al Quaeda what they want... I've been saying all along that a large (but unspoken) reason for this war was to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia, not necessarily to appease al Quaeda, but for more practical reasons - the Saudi royal family is hugely unpopular and is fast losing power. If there was a coup or another rapid transfer (or disintegration) of power, American military facilities could very easily be put into a very sketchy situation. Iraq was basically a no-risk option for a place to park our tanks and airplanes, all we needed was a justification to go in. Whether or not that 'justification' was met, we're there now, and hey, what d'ya know, they've got lots of oil there, too!

A couple other things... The US basically gave Saddam the green light to attack Kuwait, I believe in legalese what happened there is known as 'entrapment'. And as far as Iraq planning to invade Saudi Arabia - the only 'evidence' I've ever heard of that purported to support this claim were some satellite photos that were very quickly discredited.
 
Fuþorc said:
Originally Posted by Fuþorc
Now for the Iraq war. As for the link between 9/11 and Saddam, there is a VERY DEFINITE link between the two but I wouldn't expect many Americans and Europeans to realize it since many seem to have short attention spans and lack knowledge of history, including recent history.

I guess that includes Bush, since he recently said Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
 
Steve420 said:
Bush's record is much longer than that. Vietnam was bullshit anyway, and no president has gone without fucking up anything, and GWB is the worst of them all. Clinton did more for this country than any president recently. And Bush fucks up our economy that CLinton was well on the way to fix.

Steve
Surely you really don't believe that? :guh:

The last year and a half of the Clinton presidency is when the economy tanked big time. The recovery has only been going for the last 6 months or so. Let us push the political bullshit aside and hope that the economy keeps improving.

I'm no big fan of George W, but Clinton didn't do anything for this country except rape a few women, FAIL at delivering health care for everyone, did nothing to help protect the environment (national parks and forrests suffered greatly during the Clinton Admin), did nothing for gay rights (not that I care about it) and enjoyed the prosperity reaped from the technological advances that we paid for most dearly during the Reagan Administration.

Anyways, while I don't approve of much of what Bush has done, the Clinton Administration hasn't done anything I consider positive. Can you tell me?

Oh yeah, Al Gore invented the Internet. :rolleyes:
 
BUSH IS A FAG!

there hasn't been one decent american leader since i've been around...

bill clinton fucks goats

george bush is a lying cunt

who gives a shit who else there was... george bush's dad... he gave birth to the current bastard, so he's definately not cool... fuck america
 
xenophobe said:
Surely you really don't believe that? :guh:

The last year and a half of the Clinton presidency is when the economy tanked big time. The recovery has only been going for the last 6 months or so. Let us push the political bullshit aside and hope that the economy keeps improving.

I'm no big fan of George W, but Clinton didn't do anything for this country except rape a few women, FAIL at delivering health care for everyone, did nothing to help protect the environment (national parks and forrests suffered greatly during the Clinton Admin), did nothing for gay rights (not that I care about it) and enjoyed the prosperity reaped from the technological advances that we paid for most dearly during the Reagan Administration.

Anyways, while I don't approve of much of what Bush has done, the Clinton Administration hasn't done anything I consider positive. Can you tell me?

Oh yeah, Al Gore invented the Internet. :rolleyes:
Its good to see that not everyone has double-standards on political stuff.;)
 
xenophobe said:
The last year and a half of the Clinton presidency is when the economy tanked big time. The recovery has only been going for the last 6 months or so. Let us push the political bullshit aside and hope that the economy keeps improving.
Fuck this guy is living in fairyland.......America has the biggest deficit in history, right now.
I'm no big fan of George W, but Clinton didn't do anything for this country except rape a few women,
Clinton 'raped a few women'?? And he did so for America, did he? You idiot, have you ever heard of slander?
Anyways, while I don't approve of much of what Bush has done,
Yeah, you and most of the rest of the planet, punk.
 
Hey hey hey Episode 666, while I don't approve of many of the recent (and not so recent) things America has done, saying "fuck it" completely is abandoning hope. While America is far, far from perfect, I still consider myself a patriot, if only to make this a better place in some small way.Is it really America you want to say that to, or humanity in general? Cause if so, that would be much more appropriate.