Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Jul 17, 2007.
"The Bushes and Clintons go way back. They have been fast friends for decades. Only a closely guarded media cover up has hidden this fact from the general public."
Yet he provides no evidence of such.
It's commentary, not a trial.
What did you find out when you followed the below suggestion?:
of course, it's true... part of the cover up was the damaging of the computers when the Clintons left the white house.
And itr was Bush/Clinton together who got the Patriot Act passed... with minor help, of course, from the 9-11 attacks...
These internationalists are tricky people!
Since it's the main theme of his "commentary" he should provide some kind of backup.
That is, if he wishes to be taken seriously.
More hysterical media cover up accusations. Silly.
First, the media was conspiring to keep down Michael Moore. Now, they're hiding a secret Bush-Clinton dynasty.
When do they have time to report the "real" news? :laugh:
From the piece:
The fact that big donors are donating to Hillary is no suprise. Big donors usually donate to both leading parties. It's been done forever. It's the corporate way of hedging bets.
Poncho, Rufus, and one or two others make some good points about one world government, North American Union, and some other things. But getting so locked in to conspiratoral mindsets that you see a conspiracy lurking around every corner is not helpful. Sometimes people move in the same direction without consultation of each other and motivated by their own agenda. Trying to tie everyone in together is nuts.
It is really a mute point whether they are a dynasty or not. The fact is America has had enough damage done by both, and its time to make certain that neither ever returns to that office.
If there is a conspiracy to create a global government and if the North American Union is fact, then these things have come about over many years and with bipartisan support. Consider that the NAU couldn't have come about without NAFTA. NAFTA was spearheaded and signed by Clinton. Now Bush 43 is taking the next step with the NAU.
The Bush and Clinton family are overtly aligned to at least some degree as evidenced by Bubba and Poppa joining forces to stump for Asian Tsunami relief. W had plenty to hang Clinton on during the presidential transition of 2000 but let it all ride. Then you throw in some pretty respectable people with some pretty respectable credentials saying something fishy went on in Mena, and you have some pretty convincing covert alignment as well.
You have a PM to check.
When did President Clinton propose the Patriot Act? What was the number of the bill in Congress?
What did President Clinton do to get the Patriot Act passed? All this is ridiculous speculation.
You're letting facts get in the way of a good Internet conspiracy. What's the matter with you? :laugh:
I wish Chucky would stick to the Gospel, instead of this hysterical claptrap, aimed at GWB. I'm assuming he's a pastor.
There isn't a conspiracy "lurking around every corner" there's just one and it's big enough to take up space in on and around every corner. It's called one world government and the way to it is high tech, scientific and multi faceted, favored by the "left" and "right" and layered seven fold! Of course it looks like it's "lurking around every corner" because it is. Right out in the open hiding in plain sight. Hey, it ain't like they're trying to make a big secret about it anymore. Only those that keep trying to deny the obviousness of the whole thing are doing that these days.
House Bill HR 666 and Senate Bill S3
This 1996 Act was passed by a 91 to 8 margin in the U.S. Senate and was signed into law by President Clinton. It contained a number of key provisions to combat terrorism, but the ones that immediately inspired the formation of a coalition against the legislation were three in particular: the provision making it criminal to provide "material support" or "expert advice or assistance" to terrorist groups; the provision allowing the use of secret evidence in terrorism cases; and the provision authorizing the U.S. Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Attorney General to jointly designate organizations as terrorist groups based upon available evidence.
This is how your reference describes Clinton"s "Patriot Act." But it says nothing about taking away our (previous) right of Habeous Corpus. Under Clinton's legislation I assume we still had to be charged with a crime to be held in prison and still had the right to an attorney. None of this is trus under the Patriot Act not to mention the right of the government to break into and search our homes without a search warrant. Is this what you call freedom? Is this America? I suppose most don't care because we have a Republican President and a "Christian" one at that.
Valid points but this doesn't make Clinton necessarily better than W. Clinton did what he could get away with. He only had OKC, if he had 9/11 he could've probably gotten rid of habeaus corpus. Clinton was a stepping stone to Bush. If there is an election in 2008, Bush will have been the stepping stone to the next guy (or gal).
I care and I don't care about that "Republican" title as it is meaningless (kind of the theme of this thread), nor do I believe Bush 43 to be a Christian.