Bill Clinton on Steroids

[shanek]

Bill Clinton on Steroids by Harry Browne

So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.

So now the Emperor is dictating the rules of sport.

• This is the man who thinks the federal government should distribute prescription drugs.
  
• This is the man who claimed we were threatened with imminent destruction by a third-world country — one that had been thoroughly demolished and dearmed a mere decade before — and decided to liberate that country by devastating it..
  
• This is the man who wants to control private schools by making them dependent on federal vouchers.
  
• This is the man who wants to control religious charities by getting them hooked on federal welfare.
  
• This is the man who retaliated for an attack by Saudis on the World Trade Center by killing thousands of Afghans and Iraqis.
  
• This is the man who doesn't believe in fair trials or the rules of evidence, but instead believes he knows intuitively who the "bad guys" are, and thus can lock them up without a trial.
  
• This is the man who has made it clear that if you're not "with" him, you have a good chance of dying a premature death or spending the rest of your life in prison.

What seems amazing is the loyalty of Republicans to Emperor George Bush — no matter how overbearing he becomes.

No matter what he says or does, Republicans will find excuses for him, support him, cover for him, betray their own principles for him.

Of course, it isn't really George Bush they're supporting. It's the Republican Party. No matter how bad he gets, they'll continue to tell themselves it would have been worse with a Democrat.

On the day some Republican is being led to the guillotine on a trumped-up charge of abetting terrorists, he'll probably be mumbling, "Thank God for George Bush. Al Gore would have shot my dog as well."

If a Republican admits he's not happy with the runaway growth of government today, he thinks the answer is to elect more conservative Republicans to Congress (since they're doing such a good job already).

Sorry, but that approach didn't work with Eisenhower. It didn't work with Nixon. Or Reagan. Or George H.W. Bush. And it certainly won't have any effect on George W. Bush — who couldn't care less about restraining government.

Can you think of a single area of government in which George Bush hasn't already made things worse than Bill Clinton did?

Some Republicans try to fall back on national defense. They think Bill Clinton was a wimp in foreign policy — that he was less of a leader than George Bush because he killed fewer people than Bush has. Even those people should recognize that Clinton bombed Iraq steadily for eight solid years, that he fired missiles at the Sudan and Afghanistan, and that he invaded Somalia and Haiti.

Of course, those were Democratic missiles. Bush is probably firing more lethal ones.

So is there any difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush?

Yes, I believe there is.

George Bush is Bill Clinton on steroids.

Once again, I find myself with very little to comment on after Browne is finished, because so much of what he says is spot on. Bush and the Republicans have increased the size of government by 26%—NOT counting the War on Terrorism—which is four times more than Clinton ever did! But the Republicans still support him and say how much better we are than we would have been with Gore. Sheesh...

 

[Gem]

This is the man who has made it clear that if you're not "with" him, you have a good chance of dying a premature death or spending the rest of your life in prison.

Hey, anyone got that number for Homeland Security? I don't agree with Shanek's views, adn he apperntly isn't "with" Bush. Do I need evidence or can I beleive the article and the Big Government will take care of him now?



Gem

 

[LFTKBS]

Hey, anyone got that number for Homeland Security? I don't agree with Shanek's views, adn he apperntly isn't "with" Bush. Do I need evidence or can I beleive the article and the Big Government will take care of him now?



Gem

Nice response. My favorite part is where you didn't bother reading shanek's link, and where you give no evidence whatsoentirely ever as to why you don't agree with his views.

 

[corplinx]

This is the man who retaliated for an attack by Saudis on the World Trade Center by killing thousands of Afghans and Iraqis.


This is the man who doesn't believe in fair trials or the rules of evidence, but instead believes he knows intuitively who the "bad guys" are, and thus can lock them up without a trial.


This is the man who has made it clear that if you're not "with" him, you have a good chance of dying a premature death or spending the rest of your life in prison.

Was this Harry Browne or Tim Robbins?

 

[Gem]

Nice response. My favorite part is where you didn't bother reading shanek's link, and where you give no evidence whatsoentirely ever as to why you don't agree with his views.

All I'm saying is that "Emperor Bush" is going too far. I don't like Bush either, but calling him that is like comparing him to hitler.

And why do I need to give evidence to say I don't agree with his views? We can both take a single fact, and disagree on what it means.

This is the man who has made it clear that if you're not "with" him, you have a good chance of dying a premature death or spending the rest of your life in prison.

This is what needs evidence.

Gem

 

[Cecil]

And why do I need to give evidence to say I don't agree with his views? We can both take a single fact, and disagree on what it means.

To convince us that you're right? Just spouting "I disagree" with any explanation adds nothing to the discussion.

This is what needs evidence.

Did you read the link? From Bush's speech:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

 

[shanek]

This is what needs evidence.

And it is provided on the webpage.

 

[Gem]

Did you read the link? From Bush's speech:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. (Applause.) From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So what are we waiting for to invade france? I'm not familiar with the legal system of imprisoning countries.

This is the man who has made it clear that if you're not "with" him, you have a good chance of dying a premature death or spending the rest of your life in prison.

I'm asking for evidence that people DIED or were put in prison for life sentences (or more).

To convince us that you're right?

I don't beleive it's possible to convince anyone on forums. There are expceptions, of course. Have you seen the threads of hotly debated topics? It's not possible to convince anyone to change opinion easily.

I'm just being sarcastic of a few claims the author wrote.

Gem