Ah The Glory Days Of The Clinton Admin - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-24-2005, 12:51 PM   #76
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
trevster2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,330
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Thanks for info everyone. I totally forgot about the assassination threat to the President in regards to his inaccessability.
__________________

__________________
trevster2k is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 02:16 PM   #77
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
Past presidents who have served 8 years are not eligible. They have to be able to serve. Bush the father could. Ford could. Carter could.
You know, that makes sense. But I don't recall seeing anything that specifically states who cannot be a vice-president. In fact, I don't even know that term limits apply to vice-presidents - the 22nd amendment only refers to presidents.

Interesting...
__________________

__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 04:13 PM   #78
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: OC
Posts: 711
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Seemingly not in America. Clinton faced impeachment procedings. Bush has not. But I live in hope.
If Bush had been a Democrat he'd have been impeached about 50 times by now, but then again the current crop of Dems aren't very smart.
__________________
cardosino is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 05:58 PM   #79
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by phanan


You know, that makes sense. But I don't recall seeing anything that specifically states who cannot be a vice-president. In fact, I don't even know that term limits apply to vice-presidents - the 22nd amendment only refers to presidents.

Interesting...
I will try and find info for you....but I am almost 100% sure that if you cannot fulfill the rules to be President...you cannot be the VP>
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 06:29 PM   #80
Blue Crack Addict
 
phanan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: in the darkness on the edge of town
Posts: 25,060
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


I will try and find info for you....but I am almost 100% sure that if you cannot fulfill the rules to be President...you cannot be the VP>
Yeah, certainly seems logical. I was just surprised I couldn't find anything online that specifically referred to it.
__________________
phanan is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 07:38 PM   #81
Acrobat
 
echo0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WV-USA
Posts: 349
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by verte76
I want Clinton back. Seriously. I do.
Me, too.

Clinton diddled an intern; so what.

George Bush is fucking the entire country (and territories beyond).

And Clinton did not get us into a nearly insoluble military conflict in a foreign country by twisting the facts, issuing different ultimatums under he landed on one that worked, ignoring the Geneva Accords, etc.
__________________
echo0001 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:01 PM   #82
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:49 PM
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.

I don't think that it matters that Clinton did or did not have sex with any number of women or men (as long as they were of legal age).

Terrorism did occur while Clinton was in the oval office; the trade center bombing, African embassy bombings, Khobar Towars, USS Cole, the Oslo War.

The nuclear agreement from 1994 with North Korea was really a failure and has not prevented the North Korean regime from advancing its development of nuclear weapons.

He was not an awful president, he did do quite a few things right but also made what are in retrospect significant mistakes.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 08:20 PM   #83
Refugee
 
unosdostres14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: ogacihC
Posts: 1,558
Local Time: 01:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.
Yes. Saddam was an evil ruler. But he didn't provide any threat to the USA. Why would we go to war with them? There are other evil rulers in the world. And why go to war when we did? Why didn't we go to war in 2000 or 2001 or anytime prior to when we did. He was still an evil ruler then. It's interesting that we went to war while 9/11 sentiment was still high, but the President's approval rating started to fall

The fact is...Saddam was a bad ruler....but he didn't do anything that was worth going to war with them. If Saddam were still in power right now, none of our soldiers would be dead.
__________________
unosdostres14 is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 09:49 PM   #84
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox



Don;t forget France and Germany also believed that they had WMD. German intelligence predicted nukes by 2006 if I am not mistaken....but hey...I am not willing to waste more of my time looking for the facts........
I still try to figure out what for evidence Powel did present to the VN in ( inluding all those pictures )
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 06-24-2005, 11:58 PM   #85
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 11:49 PM
I do think that the Iraq Liberation Act was a good move.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 01:20 AM   #86
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 02:49 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am curious...this is the 2nd time I have seen this called an illegal war.
Only the 2nd time? You must live a very sheltered life.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:09 AM   #87
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
I still try to figure out what for evidence Powel did present to the VN in ( inluding all those pictures )
You and me both....
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:10 AM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy


Only the 2nd time? You must live a very sheltered life.
this thread
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:11 AM   #89
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
In my own opinion the damage that occured in Iraq while the Clinton administration was in office was worse than that under Bush. The responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of deaths under the sanctions however rests with Saddam Hussein.

I don't think that it matters that Clinton did or did not have sex with any number of women or men (as long as they were of legal age).

Terrorism did occur while Clinton was in the oval office; the trade center bombing, African embassy bombings, Khobar Towars, USS Cole, the Oslo War.

The nuclear agreement from 1994 with North Korea was really a failure and has not prevented the North Korean regime from advancing its development of nuclear weapons.
I have typed these same things in here before too many times...

great summary
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 06-25-2005, 04:13 AM   #90
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:49 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by unosdostres14


Yes. Saddam was an evil ruler. But he didn't provide any threat to the USA. Why would we go to war with them? There are other evil rulers in the world. And why go to war when we did? Why didn't we go to war in 2000 or 2001 or anytime prior to when we did. He was still an evil ruler then. It's interesting that we went to war while 9/11 sentiment was still high, but the President's approval rating started to fall

The fact is...Saddam was a bad ruler....but he didn't do anything that was worth going to war with them. If Saddam were still in power right now, none of our soldiers would be dead.
Can you name other rulers that invaded three other countries illegally currently in office?

Can you name oher rulers in violation of UN Securoty Council Resolutions currently in office?

Can you name other rulers that REPEATEDLY violated their CEASE FIRE agreement currently in office?

People forget that was a cease fire agreement, not a formal ending of the Gulf War.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com