Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

I suggest you read the entire article and do some research. Here is one part you should pay attention to. 1996 United States campaign finance controversy - WikipediaIn case you didn't realize it, advanced guidance systems and missile technology is a military secret. Thanks to Bill and his friends, China can now hit any target in the US they want to.You may want to consider this as well. How much more do you need?

Actual substantiation of allegations, not simply the repetition of them. The fact that you've shown that you're simply repeating allegations that others have made is not substantiation.Where's the evidence? Not the allegations, the evidence? Anonymous testimony? Alleged actions?On a side note, if the president decides to share military technology, how can that be illegal? Doesn't the president have the final say on what is classified and what is not? Holy shit! A secretary of Asian trade meeting with Asian diplomats!? Stop the presses!

i'll only allow this point because of its almost timely irony. turnabout = fairplay, even if delayed.

preferably impeach. i mean, all kind of scandals, corruption, incompetance, unconstitutional activities, and lies... at this point i know a few girls who'd be willing to give the prez a bj or two if only to have a good laugh while the neo-cons defend the presidential right to oral sex. oh, and btw, clinton did it, so it's ok.frankly, we're too lazy to form an armed coup. we all keep sitting around hoping it never has to come to that, and trying to convince ourselves that it hasn't. or, you know, throw them into gitmo to rot while awaiting charges. oh, wait.the problem here is that bush is not being held accountable for his actions. the problem continues with yoru argument. you're trying to hold clinton responsible for bush's actions. it's really too bad clinton isn't the president. you guys just can't let go of your clinton bashing, can you?heck, i don't totally blame you. i'll be bashing hillary for years.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---

as has been said before .....democracy is a form on goverment that relies on the apathy of the population to keep in power those who are there because they wanted power and found a rich sponsor......

I'll note AGAIN that there has yet to be one defense of THIS PRESIDENT'S current actions.If your only tactic rand is to draw this thread off topic about Clintion then just stop. If you don't have anything useful to say then why say anything. The more you are brining up off-topic issues the more you are making it painfully aware that there really is no defense of this president's actions. He is quite simply an elected dicator. If congress wasn't more than half comprised of other republicans completely willing to sell out to the party line then he should be or have been impeaced by now. The only conclusion that one could draw from this latest and past actions of this president is that he is anti-democratic and therefore anti-American.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

You never saw the footage of Gore in the Buddhist Temple? How about the Chinese agents at the White House coffees?You don't think sworn testimony, multitude of convictions, videotapes of people conducting illegal fundraising (soliciting bribes from foreign agents, etc,....) is evidence?Is the sky blue in your world?

So you guys admit Clinton took a bribe from communist China and in return authorized the transfer of classified military secrets, but that's OK because it's part of the president's authority?This illustrates my point. There is no sense in taking you guys seriously. You are not really concerned with presidential abuse of power, but merely concerned with bashing a Republican.You don't see me defending Bush's actions to expand presidential power. I just point out it is silly to complain if you are going to defend your guy when he does it, as crash was doing.Thanks for making my point.

So when Clinton places himself and the presidency above the law, he is a great president, but when Bush expands presidential power to stop terrorism, he is a dictator?OK. I think I understand where you are coming from.

At the time I start typing this Jazzns has (according to the site Search function) posted 6 messages in this thread:

1. Message 1
2. Message 7
3. Message 16
4. Message 19
5. Message 40
6. Message 51

As far as I can tell nowhere in any of these messages does he claim Clinton was a good President - in fact his only references to him are to ask people to stop banging on about Clinton and talk about Bush (you know, the name that's in the thread title).Yet again in this thread you demonstrate your frankly deceiftful posting style of refusing to debate the actual topic in good faith while hovering close enough to keep people interested and trying to get you to engage.I've always called it a shell game, somebody else on the forum called it a rope-a-dope tactic a while ago. Either description works.I begin to wonder if you're just a troll after all.

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

As was noted rand, the only person who brought up Clinton was YOU!Yet more and more diversion because you cannot defend the fascist action of your favorite man in office. There are lots of presidents that I don't like randman and I have made no comment about which ones I do and do not support. I want to talk about THIS president and his anti-democratic behavior. Take your Clinton bashing and diversions somewhere else. As they stand here they are nothing more that evidence of your inability to deal with the issue.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

there is little we can do about what Wilson or Hoover or Clinton did while in office. We can however see if it is posssible to impeach this President and then maybe see if he can do some jail time as well.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What randman makes clear, over and over again, is that his primary loyalty is to a political faction and an economic class, not to the ideals upon which democracy and the American republic are based. In his eyes, there is no sin which cannot be washed clean in the blood of the Republic if it is committed by a Republican.Randman has explicitly stated that he will not criticize actions performed by Republicans that he criticized when they were performed by Democrats because it would provide aid and comfort to "lefties"--his only loyalty is to power, and his only option is to change the subject.There have been about a dozen signing statements from previous presidents that seek to interpret the terms of new laws drafted with considerable involvement by the White House. Bush uses the signing statements to defy his Constitutional duties. He has issued more than 800 signing statements intended to undermine Congress' power to make laws with which he disagrees. He has repeatedly broken his Presidential Oath to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law.Fortunately, the tide is turning: conservatives with integrity are joining the chorus to criticize Bush II because they recognize the danger of allowing his precedents to stand--their partisans will not always hold the reins of government, and they no more want Democrats to enjoy an imperial presidency than liberals want Bush to do so.I believe Bush's excesses will shepherd the neocon backers of an Imperial Presidency back into the political wilderness where they belong, and randman can again pretend that his partisan goals match our national interests.

---

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01 Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

you evidently missed the joke. i said i was only allowing it because of the irony factor -- it's the same argument the neo-cons used about bush.it's not excuseable when any president does it.

---

yes, i agree. once, i lost an essay contest in high school for writing on this theme. i say "lost" because there were 12 prizes, only 7 other people who entered, and i didn't win anything.Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

---