merphie
Unregistered
M
evildave said:
I don't know. Bill Clinton served two terms.
I don't know. Bill Clinton served two terms.
merphie
Unregistered
M
The Central Scrutinizer said:
Considering his position I was say he has some bearing. Idiot? That maybe. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
evildave
Unregistered
E
merphie said:
Are you saying Bill Clinton's administration sought ways to skirt international anti-torture laws, the Geneva convention, etc.?
How many all out wars did Clinton commit the U.S. to?
How many color photographs and videos of naked prisoners being piled up with gloating morons in U.S. Army fatigues did we get under Clinton?
How many indefinite "detainees" did we fill Guantanamo with under Clinton?
I seem to remember the Clinton administration managed two straight years of SURPLUS budget to pay down the defecit before liberal Dubya got into office and produced new records for deficit spending while claiming he was "lowering taxes". If you want to try this for yourself, try maxing out every form of credit you can get, and then don't pay anything but the interest for a few years and tell us how much you "saved". Oh never mind. The government is doing that FOR you, and you probably think it's "good".
merphie
Unregistered
M
evildave said:
The problem here is there has been no declaration of war on anyone. According to Kerry there was many things going on in the Vietnam war that was against the conventions. My grandfather also talked about things that happened in the war that were not nice. (Far worse than some humiliation.) I guess the soldiers forgot their video camera in Vietnam? Those prisoner abuses were not under the direction of the president. Furthermore, they are all being put on trial for war crimes. According to the trials the acts were performed by the soldiers themselves. (READ: They weren't ordered to do so) So what ways did Bush skirt anything?
I think you are forgetting some terminology. The "Detainees" are war combatants. I supposed we should let them all go and ask them politely to not attack us anymore. Perhaps they will tell us what they know over some coffee and donuts? Did Clinton have a major military action in his time or a major terrorist attack? Wait! Somolia!
Clinton also gave us one hell of a drop in the economy when he left office. To say that the president is responsible for everything is foolish. There was several factors in on the economy at the time. Mainly the technology sector. I believe it also takes longer than a few months for policies to effect the economy. So your hero would be more likely responsible for the fall. Better yet, maybe it was the combination of a bunch of factors. (More than your narrow definition)
I supposed you think were should have done nothing after 9/11? Because anything we would have done would have caused a "budget problem".
Otherwise, the tax cuts were nice. They helped me a lot last year and they will help me even more this year. I guess you want higher taxes? Got some extra cash to burn? Oh, you would probably think higher taxes are "good".
evildave
Unregistered
E
The economy was still good enough that Dubya took credit for it when he came into office. Blame wasn't passed to Clinton until it tanked out with Dubya in office.
If the "detainees" are war comatants, then why did the Bush administration claim that they were not subject to the Geneva convention rules?
What could we have done differently, RE 9/11? How about NOT invade Iraq? That's all. That caused the majority of the budget expenditure that broke records. We were busy hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.... and then all of a sudden it became a national priority to purge Iraq of 'WMDs'. Well we did such a good job there weren't any to be found in all of Iraq.
I see, so you really do not understand what defecit spending will do to your grandchildren. Your taxes are already over $1000 higher than they should be servicing the debt. I hope you enjoy those toys your 'tax break' bought you this year. You will eventually pay them back many times over in the form of interest that the US will be paying on that debt.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
Your share of the $7,365,716,545,609.45 debt is over $25,000.
In 2003, the interest payments on the debt were $318,148,529,151.51 That's over $1000 per person in the U.S., and your share is actually HIGHER, because the share is spread across children and retirees and prisoners and others who don't earn any taxable income.
No, you obviously don't understand that as the debt grows, more of the amount you pay in taxes goes to doing nothing but service that debt. Like some drooling moron who maxes out every credit card he can get and pays all of his wages to interest, you just don't get it.
You'd rather get a $200 refund now and pay over a thousand dollars extra in interest every year forever in your taxes.
If the "detainees" are war comatants, then why did the Bush administration claim that they were not subject to the Geneva convention rules?
What could we have done differently, RE 9/11? How about NOT invade Iraq? That's all. That caused the majority of the budget expenditure that broke records. We were busy hunting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.... and then all of a sudden it became a national priority to purge Iraq of 'WMDs'. Well we did such a good job there weren't any to be found in all of Iraq.
I see, so you really do not understand what defecit spending will do to your grandchildren. Your taxes are already over $1000 higher than they should be servicing the debt. I hope you enjoy those toys your 'tax break' bought you this year. You will eventually pay them back many times over in the form of interest that the US will be paying on that debt.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
Your share of the $7,365,716,545,609.45 debt is over $25,000.
In 2003, the interest payments on the debt were $318,148,529,151.51 That's over $1000 per person in the U.S., and your share is actually HIGHER, because the share is spread across children and retirees and prisoners and others who don't earn any taxable income.
No, you obviously don't understand that as the debt grows, more of the amount you pay in taxes goes to doing nothing but service that debt. Like some drooling moron who maxes out every credit card he can get and pays all of his wages to interest, you just don't get it.
You'd rather get a $200 refund now and pay over a thousand dollars extra in interest every year forever in your taxes.
merphie said:
Bush supports the assault weapon ban. Bush has spoken out in favor of supporting the thousands of gun laws already on the books. He has supported national databases with background checks for gun buyers. I can go on.
Is Neptune as far away as Pluto? "Not quite." But it might as well be.
merphie
Unregistered
M
shanek said:
Yes of course. He was pandoring to the antigun side. He said he was for the assault weapons ban, but only if it reached his desk. Since it never reached his desk he didn't have owe up to it. He didn't even call for it to be considered. If he did it probably would have made it to his desk.
What makes you think he is anti-gun. I support any of the laws on the books. (I hesitate to say all because I do not know them all. I support the laws I am aware of) I define antigun as someone who wishes to ultimately ban all private ownership of guns. Kerry has pushed some of these ideas forward. He helped shoot down the Tort reform which would protect the gun manufacturers.
We already have a national database of gun purchases and background checks. They aren't supposed to keep the gun records for more than 24 hours. (A ruling by Ashcroft) I think the instant check system works well. You have to have a background check on any gun you buy from a Fedreral Firearms License (FFL) holder.
"Progun" doesn't mean you don't want any regulation.
merphie
Unregistered
M
shanek said:
Yeah, many was correct there. Sorry. My Bad.
Ok, give me an example of a law that infringes on the second amendment.
merphie
Unregistered
M
shanek said:
I agree. What permits are you talking about? There are a few places that require a permit. Those that do have them are being fought and contested. Kerry has even tried implimenting more restrictions. (Restrictions on ammunition and allowing places to sue gun manufacturers into bankruptcy.)
The CCW permits are different. These laws are called "Shall Issue". This means if you are not a criminal (Having a Felony) then they have to issue you a permit. This is exercising your right.
My wife has a permit and doesn't carry a gun But she has exercised her right.
merphie
Unregistered
M
Double post.
merphie said:
Many if not most states have them, and that especially makes it annoying when a gun owner travels from state to state and has to do a lot of research making sure he's in compliance with a law that shouldn't even be there in the first place.
Doesn't matter; if you do it without getting the permit, you're still breaking the law. Our rights are not conditional on having little slips of paper from the government.
No, she has deferred authority to the government that it doesn't have. You do not have to ask ANYONE permission to exercise your rights.
merphie
Unregistered
M
gnome said:
Sure I agree. From what I read of it, it was not a blanket protection. If only protected them if they were being sued for their product being used for criminal purposes. Or for claims that had no proof of wrong doing.
These kind of lawsuits don't prove any wrong doing by the manufacturer. They have all been dismissed to date. This would protect them from having to pay legal defense fees for cases that have mo merit.
merphie
Unregistered
M
shanek said:
From my understanding it would not protect them from those cases.
merphie
Unregistered
M
shanek said:
I think there is only one state that I know of that has a permit. That is Illinois. I am not aware of any other states.
I see. So we should allow anyone and everyone to carry guns? The mentally challenged people, children, and felons? I would agree such laws only restrict lawful people.
Do you view it as the same way for driver's license?
OK, so you would rather have a gun and go to jail? The law says they do have the authority to delegate this. Our system is such that you must comply with the law while fighting to change it. I believe it would be harder to change the law from a jail cell.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,596
Do you view it as the same way for driver's license?
Is driving a right? I always viewed it as a priviledge.
OK, so you would rather have a gun and go to jail? The law says they do have the authority to delegate this. Our system is such that you must comply with the law while fighting to change it. I believe it would be harder to change the law from a jail cell.
I recall reading about several acts of civil disobedience being key to actually changing laws. Didn't some black lady sit on a white's only bus?
Is driving a right? I always viewed it as a priviledge.
OK, so you would rather have a gun and go to jail? The law says they do have the authority to delegate this. Our system is such that you must comply with the law while fighting to change it. I believe it would be harder to change the law from a jail cell.
I recall reading about several acts of civil disobedience being key to actually changing laws. Didn't some black lady sit on a white's only bus?
merphie
Unregistered
M
thaiboxerken said:
Driving a priviledge? Then isn't free speech and gun ownership a priviledge?
Then I invite you to do just that and I will donate money to your defense fund. You will find it hard to vote once you have a felony.
I on the other hand chose to go the other way. I will comply with the law while I use the system to fight it at the same time. Therefor I have done nothing wrong by the law. For two main reasons. I can not afford legal fees to fight it and being the sole provider for my family I would leave them without money or means to live. This is a sacrifice I can not bring myself to do. My family does come first.
There were gentlement who did exactly that in Colorado. They walked through the street with a gun on thier hip in plain sight. Against city ordinance. The city threw them in jail, because they are a "home rule" city where apparently the second amendment doesn't apply.
I think civil disobedience is different from breaking the law. Was there actual laws that they had to sit on the back of the bus?