The great and all-powerful political thread!

There is no reason to, gun control laws NEED to be strict.



Okay you go ahead and think that.



Don't have anything aginst this, though stockpiling weapons should be made illegal as there is no need for one to do so and it is dangerous to do so.

1. no they don't. gun control laws only keep guns out of reach of law abiding citizens. criminals can just buy guns on the black market.

2. the Repubs did, but no one noticed.

3. dangerous? even if they owner is completely sane? I'm not talking about nuclear weapons, I mean firearms and assault weapons. its only dangerous if the person is either a) mentally unfit or b) has the intent to kill innocent people.
 
wth are you talking about? Examples? Sure I use the generic forum flames quite a bit because I fucking like them.

I only insult you (or anyone, for that matter) when they've said or done something completely retarded and/or full of shit. You're full of shit in almost every thing you say. To claim that no one gave a shit about the Lewinsky scandal is preposterous. That incident almost got Clinton impeached still hangs over Hillary's head as the election approaches.

(And btw, everyone here knows you're a complete moron, so it's not like this is anything new)

they tried to impeach him and they FAILED. if Clinton were a Republican he'd probably would've already gotten impeached.
 
1. no they don't. gun control laws only keep guns out of reach of law abiding citizens. criminals can just buy guns on the black market.

2. the Repubs did, but no one noticed.

3. dangerous? even if they owner is completely sane? I'm not talking about nuclear weapons, I mean firearms and assault weapons. its only dangerous if the person is either a) mentally unfit or b) has the intent to kill innocent people.

1. There are perfectly good non-lethal alternatives to firearms such as a tazer or stun gun, which yes they can kill but it takes fucking effort and if you're defending yourself you're not going to generally put in that kind of effort.

2. To be quite honest what the fuck does someones sexual activities have to do with their capacity to lead a country? None.

3. One thing, what sane fucking person would ever stockpile arms?
 
they tried to impeach him and they FAILED. if Clinton were a Republican he'd probably would've already gotten impeached.

You don't actually know what "Impeach" means, so hey.

2. To be quite honest what the fuck does someones sexual activities have to do with their capacity to lead a country? None.

I don't really remember (seeing as I was no more than 12 at the time), but I'm pretty sure the impeachment was over his allegedly lying under oath.
 
they tried to impeach him and they FAILED. if Clinton were a Republican he'd probably would've already gotten impeached.

FWIW, he was impeached, but was acquitted of the charges, which were: obstruction of justice, abuse of power and perjury.
 
I don't really remember (seeing as I was no more than 12 at the time), but I'm pretty sure the impeachment was over his allegedly lying under oath.

Oh I know what his charges were I just don't see why he brought up the "he had adulterous sex" when that isn't even REMOTELY going to stop a politician from being able to effectively lead a country.
 
FWIW, he was impeached, but was acquitted of the charges, which were: obstruction of justice, abuse of power and perjury.

You can call it whatever charge you like but the gist of it was that they wanted him to admit to having a affair and getting a BJ. They were trying to impeach him for lying about dropping a load on a dress. And that is far more a stupid reason for impeachment then everything that Bush has done and not getting impeached.
 
I'd rather have some leaniant old guy who can managed to get laid then a bullheaded coke addicted draft dodger in charge of the most powerful country in the world.

But thats just me.
 
timothy&