I would love it if you guys were more honest and say "I'm not interested in filming anything for news or anything..just an asshole conservative trying to get a "gotcha" moment! Yuck yuck yuck!"
It's not like you conservatives are known for debating rationally. So yeah...junior high ass clowing is what you seem to love since Rush.
what the people dont want to know or dont understand in form 1994 to 2000 the gop's had both house of congress we had a good economy when the gop's have both house of congress so you can really say that both congress and the white house did good jobs but people dont want to say that wtf
wow these guys being interviewed....I would be suprised that they can even read! I Imagiine the book is like his life and presidency...disgraceful. He did grt with the economy? what did he do?
"wow these guys being interviewed....I would be suprised that they can even read"
If you are going to challenge literacy, you need to learn how to spell "surprised."
"He did grt with the economy? what did he do?"
Any Prez can tank something going good like the dot com bubble. But for one, he didn't give "tax breaks" to the upper 1% cause yeah...Steve Forbes and his inherited millions has it so "rough" these days. Clinton gave them a minor tax hike.
@hipstermi so you can shorten President to prez but I can't shorten great to grt? Typical hypocrite. Also in case you are new to you tube it isnt exactly an essay format. Informal writting is the general accepted way of communicating here.
"you can shorten President to prez but I can't shorten great to grt? Typical hypocrite"
Wrong. I didn't mention "grt/great".
YOU said: -- "I would be suprised that they can even read"
I said: "If you are going to challenge literacy, you need to learn how to spell "surprised.""
This makes you look MORE idiotic now since you tried to make fun of Democrats for not being able to read. You misspelled a word and have poor reading and comprehension skills.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bill Clinton was an awesome president. Clinton = left office with America's largest budget surplus. Dumbya Bush = left America with the largest deficit in our history.
Republicans are assclowns. The only people who vote GOP are born-again evangelicals who think the earth is only 6000 years old.
See, theres the difference between Libs and Conservatives. You call us assclowns, when we can give you reason as to why we are what we are.
I dont vote GOP because im a born-again evangelical.
I vote GOP because i beleive that people should decide what they do with their money. I vote GOP because tax breaks are what stimulate an economy, not implemented taxes. I vote GOP because Ronald Wilson Reagan was the greatest president EVER.
I'm a Republican like you, and I agree that Reagan was the greatest president of this century. But I cannot justify voting for George W. Bush. Our party deserves to go to hell for nominating that buffoon.
Your a fucking typical idiotic liberal moron.I am a teamster truck driver who makes under 50k a yr.I vote for the best person for the job.I dont beleive the earth is only 6000 yrs old.I dont know anyone who does.I believe in God but im not what is considered evangelical.You like all liberals are incredibly closed minded.This is what the democrat party has become.This is why I have been voting republican for the last few yrs.
From some "Hitlery" quotes posted at rense dot com:
F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."
According to inside sources, while he was president Clinton got his orders from Bush, Sr. The New World Order, which Bush told us about, is their common goal, and it would mean the end of our freedom and sovereignty.
If 20 years from when Clinton's term ended there were no wars, no inflation, no nothing basically, I don't think that everyone would love Clinton so much. I think people say they love Clinton simply because they hate Bush.
these liberal (not even true dems) on youtube protesting don't even capture the essence of politics, they are just so fricken selfish that all they can think of is reciting their favorite bob marley line and desacrating the U.S. army... how about we teach our kids some responsibility and how to be grateful for our freedoms. (i didn't mean to rant at you... i'm just venting)
Great interview. People don't fully understand the mechanisms of politics or the Federal Reserve and are clearly are basing their opinions on wishful thinking and personality. Under Bill Clinton 500,00 children died as a result of bombings and sanctions on Iraq. He was also the jerk that deregulated the media allowing Rupert to start the first State Controlled media in the U.S.
You know, I went to another anti-war protest here in Boise and I can't get over the fact that this video isn't "stereo typing". The vast majority of these people, in Boise at least, love the Clintons, blame the Bush's for everything wrong in the world, "support the troops" but want to deny them victory. All questions are met with hostility and an explanation amounting to a singular "I dunno, just because." What a "land of confusion."
I could go on about the efforts and great successes of President Clinton. He's one of the best Presidents we've ever had, certainly better than the two Presidents that came before him, and without a doubt far superior than our current "President", George W. Bush, could ever dream of being.
I could go on and on about how Clinton sold his office to the Chinese and the hundreds of criminals (including terrorists) he pardoned when he left office but public record can speak well enough for itself.
He got closer to killing bin Laden than anyone else did, and was the first President who realized that there needed to be more emphasis on counter terrorism. We can look back today and say his counter terror efforts were weak, but it was a different world back then.
Tried to succeed in implementing serious healthcare reform (even if it failed). Taxes were cut for 15 million low income families and 90% of small businesses. He increased the minimum wage, and then also gave the states the power to increase it themselves in the future if need be. He pushed for more open international trade.
Clinton's Presidency was great. The Brady Bill made a waiting period for firearms necessary. He maintained an outstanding international presence and built relationships with countries around the world. The United States was respected by so many countries, mostly because he was so influential in how we handle foreign policy. He signed into law an act that ensured employees could leave work due to serious medical conditions or a pregnancy. Expanded subsidies for low income workers.
A waiting period on small arms is a reasonable precaution but there are other items in the Brady Bill that are unconstitutional. Foreign policy did not go well for Clinton, N. Korea and Iran developed a nuclear programs, Saddam broke the Gulf War Peace treaty and defied UN resolutions, terrorists bombed the WTC, peace process between PLO and Israel failed and NAFTA passed.
Stop blaming Clinton. If you are gonna blame Clinton, then blame Reagan/Bush for giving Bin Laden and Suddam the power they had. We (Reagan/Bush) trained them. So blame Reagan/Bush to be fair. Clinton let Bin Laden get away? At least Clinton tried. It was the Republicans screaming about an affair rather than letting the man do his job. We had him. Was an affair so important to be on trial for? He was trying to kill him while congress screamed about an affair. Stop blaming Clinton and be honest
Because i don't agree with some of your views, that makes me warped? "just making this stuff up"? You just lost my respect (like most conservatives have). To quote weeeezzll, " Liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican...it doesn't matter. Once you have decided one side is "right" and the other is "wrong" you no longer can claim to be rational. you have just proved that
But your assertions are false according to public record...so...you're full of it lol. But I still respect the fact that you have a right to your opinion, however uninformed it might be :P
There is a reason americans voted him in, 370-168 (1992) and 379-159 (1996). He was doing something "right" to get re-elected. Simply saying that people are dumb is just stupid.
Well, Bush Sr. clearly dropped the ball in '92. To be honest I would've voted Clinton at the time. Clinton's second term I'd ultimately have to put down as sabotage by Ross Perot (intentional or unintentional) and no strong Republican candidate who could pick up the pieces, there just wasn't any competition for Clinton in '96. So he won both times by a sound majority vote. But, again, congress makes economic policy not the Presidents magic "money fairy".
I look at "right" and "wrong" according my own personal standard; they are mine and apply to me. Because I "think" someone is right or wrong does not diminish or increase my respect for that persons opinion; apparently this is not the case with some Americans. What we are discussing here is the matter of public record, which reflects Former Pres. Clinton's adultery(s), purgery(s) and failure(s) to protect American interests against terrorism, these are proven public facts (i.e. the truth).
you keep tying me about the public records, tell me where to go to find this information you keep talking about since i am (according to you) "uninformed"
Youtube doesn't allow use to post URL's or I would be happy to but anyone can do a websearch and find this stuff from official sources. You just have to do the research, but you could send me a mail and I'd be happy to help.
Type "Clinton admits he was offered bin Laden but refuses" into the YouTube search bar. This appears to be the same audio recorded by newsmax so I consider this to be a reputable reproduction.
Now it has been about a month since you have replied to my sources, Why is that???? This may be the asshole in me coming out but I am eager to hear what you have to say about my sources, since it was YOU who kept claiming thatI was making it up
Found nothing of substance on the Miller Center site, Ken Krep's article makes allot of assertions but no substance. There are some inaccuracies in the rest but for the most part, they are ok imo. Here are my "sources": Common Sense -- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man -- Thomas Paine, The Federalist Papers -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and some recent stuff not written by Journalists etc.
Sources on Clinton: the Miller Center of Public Affairs, The Legacy of Bill Clinton by Ken Kreps, and The American Presidency (Encyclopedia Americana)to name a few. Sources with Bin Laden/Hussien: Milltary Blunders-Iran-Contr (history dot com), How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin by Fred Kaplan, spartacus dot schoolnet dot co dot uk/USAreagan, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA,...by Steve Coll, and Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
Clinton too busy being impeached to get Bin Laden? Ok...prove it. That's what I mean by "making stuff up", you are. Also, you say Clinton tried to get Bin Laden; public record reflects that Clinton chose not to target Bin Laden specifically because of political complications on at least one occasion in 1996. I'm not disagreeing with his judgment, however, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Clinton's administration was not very concerned about Bin Laden overall; an obvious mistake.
In the span of four days you state "you're just dumb" and "Simply saying that people are dumb is just stupid." You quote another post that said "Once you have decided one side is "right" and the other is "wrong" you no longer can claim to be rational." After saying that you "can not be an conservative because conservatives think they are perfect and they are not." Clearly you feel that one side is right and the other is wrong, so you are irrational as well, using your logic.
Someone new, I love it. You took my quotes out of context. The "you're dumb" quote was for he guy with the pointless/useless statement. The "simply saying... quote was reference to why people vote for a certain person. If you were reading my comments, then you would see that i was agreeing with some of the stuff Cycroft was saying you moron!! Just to let you know, i can't be liberal either for the same reasons i couldn't be conservative. Thus, i am not one sided.
Everything is always out of context- So what you're saying is, it is alright for YOU to call somebody dumb, but if anybody else does it, that's "just stupid." And nice job calling me a moron after I pointed out your hypocrisy, since you spend so much time at the library, perhaps you should check out a book on debate.
You say the the US government "trained" Bin Laden and Saddam--what's your source? You don't have one, because you fabricated it. You keep pleading for honesty, yet you are being entirely dishonest when you make assertions without even cursory knowledge of your subject. Read up about US involvement in the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, the information is abundant. Educate yourself; not everything is cut and dry, placing blame is meaningless, yet it seems to be your only concern.
I have lots of sources. It was introduced on the history channel, which sparked my interest. Then I went to the library for weeks looking up stuff on presidential legacies and wars. Next, I searched the web and found more information (checking with the librarian to see how reliable the cite was). I understand that everything is not "cut and dry". Placing blame is not what I was trying to do. If that's the way it comes cross, then forgive me.
Well, if after all that study, you came to the conclusion that the United States of America trained Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien, like you said, then your librarian should be fired and the authors of the books your supposedly read should be forced to forfeit any proceeds they received from the sale of those books. You like to point out that you spend all day in the library reading up on the very issues that are being discussed, why don't you cite your sources?
Sources on Clinton: the Miller Center of Public Affairs, The Legacy of Bill Clinton by Ken Kreps, and The American Presidency (Encyclopedia Americana)to name a few. Sources with Bin Laden/Hussien: Milltary Blunders-Iran-Contr (history dot com), How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin by Fred Kaplan, spartacus dot schoolnet dot co dot uk/USAreagan, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA,...by Steve Coll, and Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
The SOB signed the Omnibus Crime Bill into law. Since then the number of prisoners has doubled. Why, because the "privatized" prisons that the insider swells make the megabucks on when they IPO. Google up Solaris and see the whole truth. The war on drugs keeps prisons full and profits fat.
brilliant video. ive talked to so many people who think clinton was a good president, but they can never come up with any facts to back up those claims.
Here is Bill Clinton the honest man: "I did not have sexual relations with that women." Generally when you lie to congress and the American people...that is not good. I am not suggesting Clinton is a pedophile; rather that he is dishonest, which is a matter of public record. How trustworthy is someone who looks you straight in the eye and lies to you?
According to public record President Bush has not purgerd himself...yet. Regardless of how you feel about the man or the policies of the administration, because you think he is a liar does not make it so. There must be proof; in Clinton's case there was video proof but he got a pass for political reasons; which is a disgrace of justice.
You're right, but because it isn't in the public record (yet) doesn't mean he is all truthful either. But the reason Bill got a "pass" is because over half over Congress was doing the same thing. Another reason he got a "pass" was because of the Republicans, They were the ones with the majority of the Senate and the House. They voted not guilty!!!!!!!!! Why won't people give Bill Clinton credit for the Good things he has done? The same applies to President Bush
It's not that I think Clinton didn't do anything "good", but he wasn't a particularly great president either. He played the game like they all do. Bush (and his entire administration) on the other hand are patently bad. They hide everything from the people of this country. They make themselves immune to investigation with anti-constitutional laws and simply ignore court orders at will.
If congress makes the laws, not the President is the point. If you think a certain law is wrong or unconstitutional you need to speak with your representatives not the president. Also, name one instance in which the current president has actually broken the law. Turn off TV; do own research...become a "conservative".
First, Bush has not broken a law by lying but he is covering up the truth. Excluding Iraq, Bush put in executive privilege on Karl Rove. If he was so "innocent" then why is he not allowing Rove or Gonzales to testify to prove then innocence???????? Covering up a lie is just as bad as lying. I can not be an conservative because conservatives think they are perfect and they are not
The President can claim executive privilage to avoid the very thing we see happening; a hostile legislature tearing the administration apart to satisfy their own politicfal greed. It's a story that has played out many times over our 230+ year history; the President can't let his men testify so much as to whether the coffee in the White House is a specific brand or not because "the counter-government" will use that against him.
If Bill Clinton would have used executive privilage you would say that he was trying to hide something. Let me ask you something, should the President be tried for an affair??????????????????? These same tactics were used by the republican in the 90's against Bill, but i bet in your mind you feel that it was justified.
Look up the definition and the conditions of executive privilege and you then understand that it is for protecting the national security interests of the United States of America. Had Clinton claimed EP he would have broken the law again because his infidelity has nothing to do, directly, with US national security. Think before you type and dump this admiration for Clinton lol.
So WHAT was the point for putting him on trial about an affair??? You have not answered that question. Now you're just being an ass!!! I started admiring Bill Clinton after meeting him. Also, under his policies, my father (who was layed off) was able to get another job after being on welfare for 6 months.
Article 1: Purgery before a Grand Jury; Article 2: Purgery in the Jones case; Article 3: Obstruction of Justice; Article 4: Abuse of Power. This was about principles and the rule of law. Clinton was impeached for purgeries and high crimes; lying under oath, using executive powers improperly to coerce, silence and conceal truth. Turn off TV, do own thinking, become a conservative.
Why are you assuming that i am basing my views on T.V.? I spend hours and hours a week in the library doing the reasearch on past presidents and governors. I want to be governor of my state which is why I reasearch. The articles you listed is true. Lying about an affair, abuse of power (over an affair), and the rest is circle around his affair. Let it go
I assume you're getting your viewpoint from TV because that's where I hear and see this information being spewed constantly. It certainly isn't in those books you're reading. Again, read the article of impeachment, he was tried for lying about an affair, and obstructing a criminal investigation among other things, not because of the affair; the affair itself wasn't a crime. Do you get it yet?
But you know what makes the whole thing so damn sad; if Clinton had simply told the truth and made amends he would have been forgiven. Nixon made the same mistake in '72 with Watergate, but chose to resign before impeachment.
Comparing Nixons mistake and Clintons mistake is dumb on you part. You're right, If Clinton had told the truth, things would have been forgiven. With that said, Clinton has ask (even begged) forgiveness from God, his family, and the american people. Christians (including me) preach about Christians values and forgiveness, when are they gonna forgive and move on.
Clinton and yourself are asking us to forgive and forget. There is no forgetting, God may forgive but certainly not forget. Confession and forgiveness are two different things and must happen in that order; learnad Christians know this (Romans 10:10). Clinton has not fully confessed, he continues to deny facts and assert lies then ask to be forgiven his transgressions. It's hypocrisy.
Are you suggesting that all of our forefathers were Christians? Are you one of those ignorant bible thumpers that honestly believes this country was founded as a "Christian Nation"? You are aware that many of the great founders of this country despised Christianity and saw it as a plague on this great nation right?
So your contention is that since some of the founding fathers were not Christian the Bible played no role whatsoever in the framing of the Constitution/bill of rights? That's a pretty easy argument to pick apart. I think your hatred of Christians is clouding your judgment a bit here.
I'm not saying that the Bible didn't "play a role". What I am saying is that this is explicitly a secular country. It was not founded on Christian principles. If it was founded on Christian principles then we would still be stoning disobedient children, and burning witches.
Have you read the DoI? "...endowed by their creator with unalienable rights..." was this a fraternity prank? No, they understood that the natural state of "man", as created by God, is in liberty. The entitlements in our Constitution are all a direct result of their conclusion on July 4th, 1776. Read some Thomas Paine and maybe you'll understand.
Thomas Paine? You can't be serious? You are talking about the same Thomas Paine that authored "The Age of Reason" right? I actually went to college in New Rochelle, NY and volunteered at the Thomas Paine National Historical Association. Not that, that makes me an automatic Paine expert, but yes, I have read "some" Thomas Paine.
Pick up a copy of his early pamphlets, Common Sense and The Rights of Man. These two pamphlets layout the reasoning for core the principles, which lay at the foundation of our system of government. You have to read what you don't want to hear occasionally. I know you chose to mention AoR to hint that Paine was an atheist, but, anyone who's read it knows that he ridicules organized religion but argues for a "creator".
Whether or not Paine believed in a creator is irrelevant. I believe we were discussing whether or not this was Christian nation. You were trying to show me how it was...and you were doing a really bad job of it...
Irrelevant? You're implying that's one's personal beliefs have nothing to do with one's decision making? Clearly you didn't think that one through. Do you think the founder's just invented the concept of individual rights and natural justice with no predisposition? Such a conclusion is a naive.
Irrelevant to the founders? No. Irrelevant to this discussion? Yes. I never implied that, and actually explicitly stated the contrary in a previous comment in this thread. No I don't think they invented the concept of individual rights and or inalienable rights they simply formed a government based on them. They made that government secular to ensure things stayed that way. This is not a Christian nation.
Nation: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government. 2001Census: 159,030,000 christainas out of about 280,000,000 (57% declared Christians). We are a Christians nation according to the numbers and always have been.
Are you suggesting that because more than half of the country is composed of Christian that we must all live our lives according to Christian rule? Which 38,000 Christian denominations rules should be followed? Seventh Day, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Anabaptist, Latter Day Saint...?
I in no way implied "Christian rule". I merely pointed out the fact that we are a Christian nation and always have been. Consequently, the majority of public officials are self-proclaimed Christians. Also, didn't you just agree that one's personal beliefs do influence one's decisions at least to certain extend?
Calling this country a Christian nation is meaningless, unless you are trying to establish a basis for Christian rule.
Like I have said over and over again, I know that religious people have let their religious beliefs impact their governmental decisions. That doesn't change the fact that this is a secular nation, and not a Christian one.
Do you understand the difference between "government" and "nation"? It's not meaningless because one's beliefs influence one's decisions and those Christians are running your secular government and swearing there oaths over the Holy Bible.
The "government" is secular meaning separate from religion (all for that btw) but nothing you can write will ever change the fact that we are and always have been a "nation" dominated and founded by Christians. And that the laws enacted by those Christians were based on their principles. It is a fact of history.
You changing subject again, you said it was a Christian nation, I said it was secular. I was right. It is that simple. I have never once argued that Christians did not play a part in founding this country, or that their beliefs might have impacted that founding, only that this is not a Christian nation. You just don't want to admit that you were wrong and you keep trying to shove words in to my mouth in a sad attempt to make me wrong. Get over it...
Nation is very different from government or even country in the English language and everyone knows it. I really don't understand why you equate government and nation, I'm not aware of a single secular nation on this planet (not to say that there isn't one). The census proves that the nation is not secular, is the census beauru lying? Are we all atheists and don't know it? :P
Stop playing semantics, you know exactly what I meant. I'm obviously not saying that every person in this country is secular. I was referring to our system of government.
From the beginning to the present day, the majority population of US citizens have been "believers" of the Christian persuasion (two-thirds majority according to current census). We are descended from England, a monarchy self-proclaiming it's power derived from that of the Christian God. A creator of all things; this is the core belief from which our forefathers determined the notions of good and evil.
Descended? It was exactly this "self-proclaimed power from God" of the English government that our forefathers were trying to escape. They explicitly formed this government as a secular one to avoid the Protestant-Catholic style conflict of England. Vampire bats follow the Golden Rule, and they certainly didn't learn it from the Bible or any other religion. Religion is not required for morals.
Secular: not overtly or specifically religious. Morality: conformity to ideals of right human conduct. It's true that the US government itself is "secular". The constitution also entitles each individual to practice their religion freely; this is all but direct recognition of a creator. Futhermore, our DoI states: "they are endowed by their Creator"; this is a direct recognition of God and the granting of natural rights unto humans. Public officials still take oaths over the Holy Bible.
The DoI has no impact on how our government operates. It sets no rule of law or legal precedence. The US Constitution makes not mention of god or creator. Like I said and you just admitted, this great country is a secular nation, not a Christian one.
That's true, the DoI is no longer a "legal document", however, it demonstrates the intent and sentiments of the colonists regarding their belief in a creator. You don't seem to grasp the difference between "government" and "nation" so I refer you the definitions by Webster's Dictionary.
From those concepts they developed laws that respected the natural rights of the individual, established a system of justice, provided for the general welfare and defense of the people as a whole through equal representation. The facts remain; we are a nation founded on the principles of not just a creator, but a Christian God. "In God we trust."
You know as well as I do that "In God we trust" is a new phrase that didn't start showing up on money until the mid 1900's. Again i'm not saying that religion didn't have an impact on peoples decisions, but this country was formed as a secular nation to avoid the problems that arose from the non-secular government of England.
An act of congress mandated that the motto be placed on currency in 1837 and first appeared in 1864. So tell us all, why would such a "secular" government run by "secular" representatives want to put references to God on their coinage anyway? There is a distinction between "organized religion" and God/creator that you don't seem to understand.
The concept of god does not exist outside of religion. All definitions (as vague as they may be) of god stem from religion. "God" in particular is a clear descriptor of the Christian god, and thus is not secular even by your half ass definition.
Wrong not all, for example: "a powerful ruler" and there are many alternate definitions that have nothing to do with a religion. Your definition of "God" may be "Christian God" but that does coincide with the English language definition. Also, some people call the same God "Allah" or "Jehovah".
"a powerful ruler" is so vague that it could apply to the president or even me. "God", because of its capitalization is a proper name and thus implies a single specific god. But what of the polytheistic religions? I guess like non-believer we can just ignore them too right?
All I'm pointing out is that "God" does not necessarily equal "God of the Christians", certainly not in the English definition of the word. The Greeks, for example, had several "Gods".
The Greeks believed in many "gods" not "Gods". You see in the English language when you capitalize the first letter of a word it is either a proper noun, or it at the beginning of a sentence. Proper nouns refer to specific people, places and things. Thus "God" = specific god. In other words, the Abrahamic god.
The very notions of "justice" and "right" are defined by what is good and what is evil. How does a true atheist reason these concepts? For them there is no God, no creator, no good or evil and therefore no rights or justice? I argue that the only true atheists are life forms not self-aware and, therefore, them that deny creation are "self"-deniers.
You feel that way because you are ignorant. Religion has made you that way. Vampire bats, elephants, whales, and dolphins (just to name a few) exhibit moral behavior. They certainly didn't learn it from religion.
So are you telling me that with out the Bible you would go around raping children, and killing people?
Thank you for that, you've shown the extent of your petty intolerance and incivility yet again. Christianity may be rape and murder in your warped mind but those of us who take the 10 Commandments and the laws of Leviticus to heart know that's exactly what one is not supposed to do.
What the fuck are you talking about? You said that the Bible or God tells you what is right and wrong and that with out them we could not know what is right or wrong. Thus you are saying that you would do wrong if you didn't know God or the Bible. But if you want to get technical about it the Bible does in fact encourage killing, slavery, rape and many other atrocious things.
Clearly you haven't read the actual text or were not paying attention like now. The Bible "encourages" nothing; it is a documentary text of accounts of various prophets, apostils and disciples. There are accounts of killing this is true; those who offended God were punished. However, as is the case throughout human history, the "atrocities" where committed by humans; not commanded by God. You have to read it and think about it to understand it.
Exodus tells the reader that those that break the sabbath "shall surely be put to death"
Numbers makes the same statement and then illustrates how you are to understand the statement. Moses and his congregation "stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded"
Maybe you should read you Bible again. I know it much much better than you think, and apparently much better than you...
I read it every day and there are much harsher things than stonings in there; infantiside for one. But you have to understand the context and pay attention to who is doing what. Many things in there are not commanded by God, these are historical accounts. Bottom line, obey the commandments and repent (stop offending God, not just confession.)
Like I wrote, if one offended God one was punished. I never implied the "buddy Jesus" mantra'. No, God was wrathful. But, again, context is of critical import. Many "Christians" push the "buddy Jesus" stuff and those people are hieratics in every definition of the word.
Why did Thomas Jefferson attend church regularly? Look, I can probably do a search and find something that every Pope said that the anti-God people use to claim he's an atheist. Unless you really study Jefferson's entire life and the people around him you're not going to understand this complex historical figure and put his words in the proper context.
Because he thought that the story of Jesus and his parables had valuable lessons. He even went as far as to write The Jefferson Bible, in which he removed all of the silly dogma and left only the story of Jesus and the parables. Many non-believers continue attending church because all of their loved ones do.
Good things Former Pres. Clinton did? I'm looking at his "record of accomplishments" and I can't find anything I'd classify as "good" for the USA. In fact, he failed to protect our interests against terrorists and several occassions not to mention humiliating us. We don't talk about the "good" Clinton did because there isn't anything.
Here are some to name a few: 1st he led the nation into a succession of stable and prosperous economic years. 2nd He fought for and saw NAFTA passed (started by Bush 41) 3rd unemployment reached record lows 4th he balanced the budget giving us the first surplus in the past 40 years. If you want more, YOU do the research. Don't be conservative, be honest!!!
1.you and I both know the "economic" success was the result of the previos administration as is [often] the case; 2.Clinton changed certain things and we still have Mexicans streaming across the boarder for jobs, NAFTA is an utterly failed policy, 3.employment %...inheirated, balanced budget...Surplus...Guess my check is still in the mail. Anyone who does research on it knows that the "shut-down" was a dog-and-pony show and accomplished nothing in the end. Congress still over spent.
1. Clinton adopted a 7.3% and growing unemployment rate and left Bush a stable ~4.0% rate.
2. You didn't get a check because even with a surplus in the annual budget there is a huge debt to pay off. Hmmmm...what have the last three Republican presidents done to our budget? Star wars...Gulf war...Iraq war...
Of course you knew all of this already didn't you?
You bunch of poor saps! Didn't you guys know there is a switch in the back of the white house marked "economy"! All the president has to do is flip the switch, bad economy, good economy! That's how it works you bunch of young skulls full of mush!
Since most Republicans are Christian is only stands to reason that they would use the same tactics in politic that they use when defending their religion.
Christians can not provide good supporting evidence for their beliefs so they spend all of their time trying to make science look bad. They think that if they can make the opposition look bad then they can make themselves look right.
Actually there is a lot of supporting evidence for what Christians believe. Christians base their faith off the Bible. Manuscripts are continually being discovered that provide historical evidences that line up with what is written in the Bible. These manuscripts are written in the style of the time the Bible is describing.
This has been flagged as spam show
FBi actually found terrorist under Clinton, Ireland had peace, Robust ecconomy, making Ginrich look like a fool. Helping the people of Kosovo.
LeighMet 1 year ago
FBi actually found terrorist under Clinton, Ireland had peace, Robust ecconomy, making Ginrich look like a fool. Helping the people of Kosovo
LeighMet 1 year ago
FBi actually found terrorist under Clinton, Ireland had peace, Robust ecconomy, making Ginrich look like a fool.
LeighMet 1 year ago
Making peace with Ireland robust ecconomy tried to get the peace deal in the middle eastthose are things to be proud of
LeighMet 1 year ago
I would love it if you guys were more honest and say "I'm not interested in filming anything for news or anything..just an asshole conservative trying to get a "gotcha" moment! Yuck yuck yuck!"
It's not like you conservatives are known for debating rationally. So yeah...junior high ass clowing is what you seem to love since Rush.
hipstermi 1 year ago
I dont know wtf is going on beetween 1:00-1:04, but shes hot...
johnfox3 1 year ago
"How did you end up as a Democrat?"
"My parents."
Sums it up right there.
tenfed1861 1 year ago
@tenfed1861
"How did you end up as a Democrat?"
"My parents."
Sums it up right there."
Oh come on...I bet 99% of Republicans that age say the SAME thing. You guys really arent the most independent thinkers.
hipstermi 1 year ago
what the people dont want to know or dont understand in form 1994 to 2000 the gop's had both house of congress we had a good economy when the gop's have both house of congress so you can really say that both congress and the white house did good jobs but people dont want to say that wtf
attie3 2 years ago
wow these guys being interviewed....I would be suprised that they can even read! I Imagiine the book is like his life and presidency...disgraceful. He did grt with the economy? what did he do?
skangmox 2 years ago 2
@skangmox
"wow these guys being interviewed....I would be suprised that they can even read"
If you are going to challenge literacy, you need to learn how to spell "surprised."
"He did grt with the economy? what did he do?"
Any Prez can tank something going good like the dot com bubble. But for one, he didn't give "tax breaks" to the upper 1% cause yeah...Steve Forbes and his inherited millions has it so "rough" these days. Clinton gave them a minor tax hike.
hipstermi 1 year ago
@hipstermi so you can shorten President to prez but I can't shorten great to grt? Typical hypocrite. Also in case you are new to you tube it isnt exactly an essay format. Informal writting is the general accepted way of communicating here.
skangmox 1 year ago
@skangmox
"you can shorten President to prez but I can't shorten great to grt? Typical hypocrite"
Wrong. I didn't mention "grt/great".
YOU said: -- "I would be suprised that they can even read"
I said: "If you are going to challenge literacy, you need to learn how to spell "surprised.""
This makes you look MORE idiotic now since you tried to make fun of Democrats for not being able to read. You misspelled a word and have poor reading and comprehension skills.
Dumbass.
hipstermi 1 year ago
@hipstermi yes you did mention grt/great you stupid fuck you copied and pasted it and put it in ". LOL pwned
skangmox 1 year ago
@skangmox
"yes you did mention grt/great you stupid fuck you copied and pasted it and put it in "."
I notice you "forgot" to use quotes. You know...the stuff that proves your dumbass accusation wrong. "LOL pwned"
Does anyone above 13 from 2008 still use that word?
Anyway...how is it a "pwn" when everything I said was true and you STILL misspelled "surprised" like a dimwit.
hipstermi 1 year ago
@hipstermi you are having a hard time keeping up huh?
skangmox 1 year ago
@skangmox
"yes you did mention grt/great" I didn't correct you on that the way you claimed when you cried like a bitch:
--- you can shorten President to prez but I can't shorten great to grt? Typical hypocrite--
I called you out on:
a. making fun of liberals and saying they can't read
b. your dumb spelling of SURPRISED: -- -- "I would be suprised that they can even read"
This completely proves you wrong & makes you look even MORE stupid, even by conservative standards.
quotes = your fail
hipstermi 1 year ago
I gave copies for Xmas.
Mephistonia 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bill Clinton was an awesome president. Clinton = left office with America's largest budget surplus. Dumbya Bush = left America with the largest deficit in our history.
Republicans are assclowns. The only people who vote GOP are born-again evangelicals who think the earth is only 6000 years old.
ChrisArlingtonVA 3 years ago
See, theres the difference between Libs and Conservatives. You call us assclowns, when we can give you reason as to why we are what we are.
I dont vote GOP because im a born-again evangelical.
I vote GOP because i beleive that people should decide what they do with their money. I vote GOP because tax breaks are what stimulate an economy, not implemented taxes. I vote GOP because Ronald Wilson Reagan was the greatest president EVER.
mynamescoolerthanurs 3 years ago 2
Thank you for showing me the tolerant side of liberalism.
barrenground 3 years ago 3
I'm a Republican like you, and I agree that Reagan was the greatest president of this century. But I cannot justify voting for George W. Bush. Our party deserves to go to hell for nominating that buffoon.
sean2015 2 years ago
Your a fucking typical idiotic liberal moron.I am a teamster truck driver who makes under 50k a yr.I vote for the best person for the job.I dont beleive the earth is only 6000 yrs old.I dont know anyone who does.I believe in God but im not what is considered evangelical.You like all liberals are incredibly closed minded.This is what the democrat party has become.This is why I have been voting republican for the last few yrs.
jays2474 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
hipstermi 1 year ago
reminds me of Jay walk on Leno. Why don't they just admit, they like him because TV told them too.
kkmart43 3 years ago 2
He said thanks and I like your pants hahaha did anyone get that hahaha coming from bill clinton oh man I love that sexist pig he's awesome hahaha
eddypimp 3 years ago
Bill Clinton was a good president.
List of good Republican Presidents in the past 30 years:
Joe402 3 years ago
Dumb clintonites!
A bunch of shit 4 brains!!
Imhotepintheflesh 3 years ago
lol, what hipocrits.
Spideyfan117 3 years ago 2
They didn't have one thing stand out about his policies?
I can think of something: The biggest reason I liked about Clinton was the war in Kosovo.
The main reason I like Bush is the war against Islamic radicals.
TomerMMHA 4 years ago 3
From some "Hitlery" quotes posted at rense dot com:
F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you shit-kickers every day, I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut." (From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with "Good morning."
patriotagainstempire 4 years ago 3
According to inside sources, while he was president Clinton got his orders from Bush, Sr. The New World Order, which Bush told us about, is their common goal, and it would mean the end of our freedom and sovereignty.
patriotagainstempire 4 years ago
ahahahahah
youngmarklevin 4 years ago
If 20 years from when Clinton's term ended there were no wars, no inflation, no nothing basically, I don't think that everyone would love Clinton so much. I think people say they love Clinton simply because they hate Bush.
zomgFletch 4 years ago 2
these liberal (not even true dems) on youtube protesting don't even capture the essence of politics, they are just so fricken selfish that all they can think of is reciting their favorite bob marley line and desacrating the U.S. army... how about we teach our kids some responsibility and how to be grateful for our freedoms. (i didn't mean to rant at you... i'm just venting)
c2da3rd4life 3 years ago
Hahaha, Clinton said he liked that girl's pants?! Oh Bill, you dog you, up to your old ways as usual.
zomgFletch 4 years ago
childrens do learn....
COMEBACKKID62 4 years ago
these people are rampantly stupid.
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago 2
Stupid Sheep BBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There should be a test to vote.
batt2112 4 years ago 2
Great interview. People don't fully understand the mechanisms of politics or the Federal Reserve and are clearly are basing their opinions on wishful thinking and personality. Under Bill Clinton 500,00 children died as a result of bombings and sanctions on Iraq. He was also the jerk that deregulated the media allowing Rupert to start the first State Controlled media in the U.S.
aaroncalhoun 4 years ago
You know, I went to another anti-war protest here in Boise and I can't get over the fact that this video isn't "stereo typing". The vast majority of these people, in Boise at least, love the Clintons, blame the Bush's for everything wrong in the world, "support the troops" but want to deny them victory. All questions are met with hostility and an explanation amounting to a singular "I dunno, just because." What a "land of confusion."
CYCROFT 4 years ago
I could go on about the efforts and great successes of President Clinton. He's one of the best Presidents we've ever had, certainly better than the two Presidents that came before him, and without a doubt far superior than our current "President", George W. Bush, could ever dream of being.
Gish06 4 years ago
I could go on and on about how Clinton sold his office to the Chinese and the hundreds of criminals (including terrorists) he pardoned when he left office but public record can speak well enough for itself.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
He got closer to killing bin Laden than anyone else did, and was the first President who realized that there needed to be more emphasis on counter terrorism. We can look back today and say his counter terror efforts were weak, but it was a different world back then.
Gish06 4 years ago
Bill Clinton refused to take out Bin Laden several times...I have the audio if you want it.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Tried to succeed in implementing serious healthcare reform (even if it failed). Taxes were cut for 15 million low income families and 90% of small businesses. He increased the minimum wage, and then also gave the states the power to increase it themselves in the future if need be. He pushed for more open international trade.
Gish06 4 years ago
Government mandated redistribution of wealth is unjust, unconstitutional and un-American.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Clinton's Presidency was great. The Brady Bill made a waiting period for firearms necessary. He maintained an outstanding international presence and built relationships with countries around the world. The United States was respected by so many countries, mostly because he was so influential in how we handle foreign policy. He signed into law an act that ensured employees could leave work due to serious medical conditions or a pregnancy. Expanded subsidies for low income workers.
Gish06 4 years ago
A waiting period on small arms is a reasonable precaution but there are other items in the Brady Bill that are unconstitutional. Foreign policy did not go well for Clinton, N. Korea and Iran developed a nuclear programs, Saddam broke the Gulf War Peace treaty and defied UN resolutions, terrorists bombed the WTC, peace process between PLO and Israel failed and NAFTA passed.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Evan is a partisan asshole, and it's quite obvious that he focused on the same four or five people giving stupid responses.
Gish06 4 years ago
wasnt that clinton passing by at 02:05?
masudrules 4 years ago
Stop blaming Clinton. If you are gonna blame Clinton, then blame Reagan/Bush for giving Bin Laden and Suddam the power they had. We (Reagan/Bush) trained them. So blame Reagan/Bush to be fair. Clinton let Bin Laden get away? At least Clinton tried. It was the Republicans screaming about an affair rather than letting the man do his job. We had him. Was an affair so important to be on trial for? He was trying to kill him while congress screamed about an affair. Stop blaming Clinton and be honest
turnipseed316 4 years ago
omg you're so warped. you just making this stuff up now.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Because i don't agree with some of your views, that makes me warped? "just making this stuff up"? You just lost my respect (like most conservatives have). To quote weeeezzll, " Liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican...it doesn't matter. Once you have decided one side is "right" and the other is "wrong" you no longer can claim to be rational. you have just proved that
turnipseed316 4 years ago
But your assertions are false according to public record...so...you're full of it lol. But I still respect the fact that you have a right to your opinion, however uninformed it might be :P
CYCROFT 4 years ago
There is a reason americans voted him in, 370-168 (1992) and 379-159 (1996). He was doing something "right" to get re-elected. Simply saying that people are dumb is just stupid.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Well, Bush Sr. clearly dropped the ball in '92. To be honest I would've voted Clinton at the time. Clinton's second term I'd ultimately have to put down as sabotage by Ross Perot (intentional or unintentional) and no strong Republican candidate who could pick up the pieces, there just wasn't any competition for Clinton in '96. So he won both times by a sound majority vote. But, again, congress makes economic policy not the Presidents magic "money fairy".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
I look at "right" and "wrong" according my own personal standard; they are mine and apply to me. Because I "think" someone is right or wrong does not diminish or increase my respect for that persons opinion; apparently this is not the case with some Americans. What we are discussing here is the matter of public record, which reflects Former Pres. Clinton's adultery(s), purgery(s) and failure(s) to protect American interests against terrorism, these are proven public facts (i.e. the truth).
CYCROFT 4 years ago
you keep tying me about the public records, tell me where to go to find this information you keep talking about since i am (according to you) "uninformed"
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Youtube doesn't allow use to post URL's or I would be happy to but anyone can do a websearch and find this stuff from official sources. You just have to do the research, but you could send me a mail and I'd be happy to help.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Type "Clinton admits he was offered bin Laden but refuses" into the YouTube search bar. This appears to be the same audio recorded by newsmax so I consider this to be a reputable reproduction.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Now it has been about a month since you have replied to my sources, Why is that???? This may be the asshole in me coming out but I am eager to hear what you have to say about my sources, since it was YOU who kept claiming thatI was making it up
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Found nothing of substance on the Miller Center site, Ken Krep's article makes allot of assertions but no substance. There are some inaccuracies in the rest but for the most part, they are ok imo. Here are my "sources": Common Sense -- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man -- Thomas Paine, The Federalist Papers -- Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and some recent stuff not written by Journalists etc.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Sources on Clinton: the Miller Center of Public Affairs, The Legacy of Bill Clinton by Ken Kreps, and The American Presidency (Encyclopedia Americana)to name a few. Sources with Bin Laden/Hussien: Milltary Blunders-Iran-Contr (history dot com), How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin by Fred Kaplan, spartacus dot schoolnet dot co dot uk/USAreagan, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA,...by Steve Coll, and Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Clinton too busy being impeached to get Bin Laden? Ok...prove it. That's what I mean by "making stuff up", you are. Also, you say Clinton tried to get Bin Laden; public record reflects that Clinton chose not to target Bin Laden specifically because of political complications on at least one occasion in 1996. I'm not disagreeing with his judgment, however, the preponderance of evidence suggests that Clinton's administration was not very concerned about Bin Laden overall; an obvious mistake.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
In the span of four days you state "you're just dumb" and "Simply saying that people are dumb is just stupid." You quote another post that said "Once you have decided one side is "right" and the other is "wrong" you no longer can claim to be rational." After saying that you "can not be an conservative because conservatives think they are perfect and they are not." Clearly you feel that one side is right and the other is wrong, so you are irrational as well, using your logic.
jmzrapp 4 years ago
Someone new, I love it. You took my quotes out of context. The "you're dumb" quote was for he guy with the pointless/useless statement. The "simply saying... quote was reference to why people vote for a certain person. If you were reading my comments, then you would see that i was agreeing with some of the stuff Cycroft was saying you moron!! Just to let you know, i can't be liberal either for the same reasons i couldn't be conservative. Thus, i am not one sided.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Everything is always out of context- So what you're saying is, it is alright for YOU to call somebody dumb, but if anybody else does it, that's "just stupid." And nice job calling me a moron after I pointed out your hypocrisy, since you spend so much time at the library, perhaps you should check out a book on debate.
jmzrapp 4 years ago
You missed the point. If you wish to argue about the dumb/stupid quote, then i'm through with you.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
You say the the US government "trained" Bin Laden and Saddam--what's your source? You don't have one, because you fabricated it. You keep pleading for honesty, yet you are being entirely dishonest when you make assertions without even cursory knowledge of your subject. Read up about US involvement in the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union, the information is abundant. Educate yourself; not everything is cut and dry, placing blame is meaningless, yet it seems to be your only concern.
jmzrapp 4 years ago
I have lots of sources. It was introduced on the history channel, which sparked my interest. Then I went to the library for weeks looking up stuff on presidential legacies and wars. Next, I searched the web and found more information (checking with the librarian to see how reliable the cite was). I understand that everything is not "cut and dry". Placing blame is not what I was trying to do. If that's the way it comes cross, then forgive me.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Well, if after all that study, you came to the conclusion that the United States of America trained Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussien, like you said, then your librarian should be fired and the authors of the books your supposedly read should be forced to forfeit any proceeds they received from the sale of those books. You like to point out that you spend all day in the library reading up on the very issues that are being discussed, why don't you cite your sources?
jmzrapp 4 years ago
Sources on Clinton: the Miller Center of Public Affairs, The Legacy of Bill Clinton by Ken Kreps, and The American Presidency (Encyclopedia Americana)to name a few. Sources with Bin Laden/Hussien: Milltary Blunders-Iran-Contr (history dot com), How he turned a jihadist into a terrorist kingpin by Fred Kaplan, spartacus dot schoolnet dot co dot uk/USAreagan, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA,...by Steve Coll, and Informed Comment Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Which one of those states that Reagan and Bush trained Osama and Saddam?
jmzrapp 4 years ago
The SOB signed the Omnibus Crime Bill into law. Since then the number of prisoners has doubled. Why, because the "privatized" prisons that the insider swells make the megabucks on when they IPO. Google up Solaris and see the whole truth. The war on drugs keeps prisons full and profits fat.
marxbitesall 4 years ago
clintons a RAPEST piece of shit
giosig 4 years ago
you're just dumb
turnipseed316 4 years ago
I agree, Giosig's commentary is baseless and not helpful.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Clinton had a Legacy? HAH!
grisham77 4 years ago
Lol, I don't think any of them are going to read it.
TheGreatestGreatApe 4 years ago
"He was a real president."
"I just think he kept democracy going."
"When he talks I really believe him."
"He is the melting pot of bringing ethnic backgrounds together."
Wow.
Stronghurst 4 years ago
brilliant video. ive talked to so many people who think clinton was a good president, but they can never come up with any facts to back up those claims.
ShotgunDMB 4 years ago
Here is Bill Clinton the honest man: "I did not have sexual relations with that women." Generally when you lie to congress and the American people...that is not good. I am not suggesting Clinton is a pedophile; rather that he is dishonest, which is a matter of public record. How trustworthy is someone who looks you straight in the eye and lies to you?
CYCROFT 4 years ago
If that's the case, how do you feel about the current president? Hell, all the presidents have done the same thing
turnipseed316 4 years ago
According to public record President Bush has not purgerd himself...yet. Regardless of how you feel about the man or the policies of the administration, because you think he is a liar does not make it so. There must be proof; in Clinton's case there was video proof but he got a pass for political reasons; which is a disgrace of justice.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
You're right, but because it isn't in the public record (yet) doesn't mean he is all truthful either. But the reason Bill got a "pass" is because over half over Congress was doing the same thing. Another reason he got a "pass" was because of the Republicans, They were the ones with the majority of the Senate and the House. They voted not guilty!!!!!!!!! Why won't people give Bill Clinton credit for the Good things he has done? The same applies to President Bush
turnipseed316 4 years ago
It's not that I think Clinton didn't do anything "good", but he wasn't a particularly great president either. He played the game like they all do. Bush (and his entire administration) on the other hand are patently bad. They hide everything from the people of this country. They make themselves immune to investigation with anti-constitutional laws and simply ignore court orders at will.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
If congress makes the laws, not the President is the point. If you think a certain law is wrong or unconstitutional you need to speak with your representatives not the president. Also, name one instance in which the current president has actually broken the law. Turn off TV; do own research...become a "conservative".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
First, Bush has not broken a law by lying but he is covering up the truth. Excluding Iraq, Bush put in executive privilege on Karl Rove. If he was so "innocent" then why is he not allowing Rove or Gonzales to testify to prove then innocence???????? Covering up a lie is just as bad as lying. I can not be an conservative because conservatives think they are perfect and they are not
turnipseed316 4 years ago
The President can claim executive privilage to avoid the very thing we see happening; a hostile legislature tearing the administration apart to satisfy their own politicfal greed. It's a story that has played out many times over our 230+ year history; the President can't let his men testify so much as to whether the coffee in the White House is a specific brand or not because "the counter-government" will use that against him.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
If Bill Clinton would have used executive privilage you would say that he was trying to hide something. Let me ask you something, should the President be tried for an affair??????????????????? These same tactics were used by the republican in the 90's against Bill, but i bet in your mind you feel that it was justified.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Look up the definition and the conditions of executive privilege and you then understand that it is for protecting the national security interests of the United States of America. Had Clinton claimed EP he would have broken the law again because his infidelity has nothing to do, directly, with US national security. Think before you type and dump this admiration for Clinton lol.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
So WHAT was the point for putting him on trial about an affair??? You have not answered that question. Now you're just being an ass!!! I started admiring Bill Clinton after meeting him. Also, under his policies, my father (who was layed off) was able to get another job after being on welfare for 6 months.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Dude, anyone can read the articles of impeachment; I suggest you do that immediately; it's obvious you haven't yet. "Hee-Haw".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Article 1: Purgery before a Grand Jury; Article 2: Purgery in the Jones case; Article 3: Obstruction of Justice; Article 4: Abuse of Power. This was about principles and the rule of law. Clinton was impeached for purgeries and high crimes; lying under oath, using executive powers improperly to coerce, silence and conceal truth. Turn off TV, do own thinking, become a conservative.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Why are you assuming that i am basing my views on T.V.? I spend hours and hours a week in the library doing the reasearch on past presidents and governors. I want to be governor of my state which is why I reasearch. The articles you listed is true. Lying about an affair, abuse of power (over an affair), and the rest is circle around his affair. Let it go
turnipseed316 4 years ago
I assume you're getting your viewpoint from TV because that's where I hear and see this information being spewed constantly. It certainly isn't in those books you're reading. Again, read the article of impeachment, he was tried for lying about an affair, and obstructing a criminal investigation among other things, not because of the affair; the affair itself wasn't a crime. Do you get it yet?
CYCROFT 4 years ago
But you know what makes the whole thing so damn sad; if Clinton had simply told the truth and made amends he would have been forgiven. Nixon made the same mistake in '72 with Watergate, but chose to resign before impeachment.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Comparing Nixons mistake and Clintons mistake is dumb on you part. You're right, If Clinton had told the truth, things would have been forgiven. With that said, Clinton has ask (even begged) forgiveness from God, his family, and the american people. Christians (including me) preach about Christians values and forgiveness, when are they gonna forgive and move on.
turnipseed316 4 years ago
Clinton and yourself are asking us to forgive and forget. There is no forgetting, God may forgive but certainly not forget. Confession and forgiveness are two different things and must happen in that order; learnad Christians know this (Romans 10:10). Clinton has not fully confessed, he continues to deny facts and assert lies then ask to be forgiven his transgressions. It's hypocrisy.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
"learnad Christians" ROTF! What a fucking tool!
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Not a very nice thing to say about our forefathers.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that all of our forefathers were Christians? Are you one of those ignorant bible thumpers that honestly believes this country was founded as a "Christian Nation"? You are aware that many of the great founders of this country despised Christianity and saw it as a plague on this great nation right?
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Really????? How many and what were their names?
taelwyngor 4 years ago
Hey, heres a novel idea! Why don't you get off your ass and do some research. Do I look like your fucking personal research assistant?
Step 1 - go to Google dot com
Step 2 - search for "atheist quotes"
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-Thomas Jefferson, 3rd American President
weeeezzll 4 years ago
So your contention is that since some of the founding fathers were not Christian the Bible played no role whatsoever in the framing of the Constitution/bill of rights? That's a pretty easy argument to pick apart. I think your hatred of Christians is clouding your judgment a bit here.
jmzrapp 4 years ago
I'm not saying that the Bible didn't "play a role". What I am saying is that this is explicitly a secular country. It was not founded on Christian principles. If it was founded on Christian principles then we would still be stoning disobedient children, and burning witches.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Have you read the DoI? "...endowed by their creator with unalienable rights..." was this a fraternity prank? No, they understood that the natural state of "man", as created by God, is in liberty. The entitlements in our Constitution are all a direct result of their conclusion on July 4th, 1776. Read some Thomas Paine and maybe you'll understand.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Thomas Paine? You can't be serious? You are talking about the same Thomas Paine that authored "The Age of Reason" right? I actually went to college in New Rochelle, NY and volunteered at the Thomas Paine National Historical Association. Not that, that makes me an automatic Paine expert, but yes, I have read "some" Thomas Paine.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Pick up a copy of his early pamphlets, Common Sense and The Rights of Man. These two pamphlets layout the reasoning for core the principles, which lay at the foundation of our system of government. You have to read what you don't want to hear occasionally. I know you chose to mention AoR to hint that Paine was an atheist, but, anyone who's read it knows that he ridicules organized religion but argues for a "creator".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Whether or not Paine believed in a creator is irrelevant. I believe we were discussing whether or not this was Christian nation. You were trying to show me how it was...and you were doing a really bad job of it...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Irrelevant? You're implying that's one's personal beliefs have nothing to do with one's decision making? Clearly you didn't think that one through. Do you think the founder's just invented the concept of individual rights and natural justice with no predisposition? Such a conclusion is a naive.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Irrelevant to the founders? No. Irrelevant to this discussion? Yes. I never implied that, and actually explicitly stated the contrary in a previous comment in this thread. No I don't think they invented the concept of individual rights and or inalienable rights they simply formed a government based on them. They made that government secular to ensure things stayed that way. This is not a Christian nation.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Nation: a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government. 2001Census: 159,030,000 christainas out of about 280,000,000 (57% declared Christians). We are a Christians nation according to the numbers and always have been.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that because more than half of the country is composed of Christian that we must all live our lives according to Christian rule? Which 38,000 Christian denominations rules should be followed? Seventh Day, Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, Anabaptist, Latter Day Saint...?
Get real...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
I in no way implied "Christian rule". I merely pointed out the fact that we are a Christian nation and always have been. Consequently, the majority of public officials are self-proclaimed Christians. Also, didn't you just agree that one's personal beliefs do influence one's decisions at least to certain extend?
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Calling this country a Christian nation is meaningless, unless you are trying to establish a basis for Christian rule.
Like I have said over and over again, I know that religious people have let their religious beliefs impact their governmental decisions. That doesn't change the fact that this is a secular nation, and not a Christian one.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Do you understand the difference between "government" and "nation"? It's not meaningless because one's beliefs influence one's decisions and those Christians are running your secular government and swearing there oaths over the Holy Bible.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
The "government" is secular meaning separate from religion (all for that btw) but nothing you can write will ever change the fact that we are and always have been a "nation" dominated and founded by Christians. And that the laws enacted by those Christians were based on their principles. It is a fact of history.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
You changing subject again, you said it was a Christian nation, I said it was secular. I was right. It is that simple. I have never once argued that Christians did not play a part in founding this country, or that their beliefs might have impacted that founding, only that this is not a Christian nation. You just don't want to admit that you were wrong and you keep trying to shove words in to my mouth in a sad attempt to make me wrong. Get over it...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Nation is very different from government or even country in the English language and everyone knows it. I really don't understand why you equate government and nation, I'm not aware of a single secular nation on this planet (not to say that there isn't one). The census proves that the nation is not secular, is the census beauru lying? Are we all atheists and don't know it? :P
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Stop playing semantics, you know exactly what I meant. I'm obviously not saying that every person in this country is secular. I was referring to our system of government.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
From the beginning to the present day, the majority population of US citizens have been "believers" of the Christian persuasion (two-thirds majority according to current census). We are descended from England, a monarchy self-proclaiming it's power derived from that of the Christian God. A creator of all things; this is the core belief from which our forefathers determined the notions of good and evil.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Descended? It was exactly this "self-proclaimed power from God" of the English government that our forefathers were trying to escape. They explicitly formed this government as a secular one to avoid the Protestant-Catholic style conflict of England. Vampire bats follow the Golden Rule, and they certainly didn't learn it from the Bible or any other religion. Religion is not required for morals.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Secular: not overtly or specifically religious. Morality: conformity to ideals of right human conduct. It's true that the US government itself is "secular". The constitution also entitles each individual to practice their religion freely; this is all but direct recognition of a creator. Futhermore, our DoI states: "they are endowed by their Creator"; this is a direct recognition of God and the granting of natural rights unto humans. Public officials still take oaths over the Holy Bible.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
The DoI has no impact on how our government operates. It sets no rule of law or legal precedence. The US Constitution makes not mention of god or creator. Like I said and you just admitted, this great country is a secular nation, not a Christian one.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
That's true, the DoI is no longer a "legal document", however, it demonstrates the intent and sentiments of the colonists regarding their belief in a creator. You don't seem to grasp the difference between "government" and "nation" so I refer you the definitions by Webster's Dictionary.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
The sentiment of the colonist doesn't change the law.
Good night...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
From those concepts they developed laws that respected the natural rights of the individual, established a system of justice, provided for the general welfare and defense of the people as a whole through equal representation. The facts remain; we are a nation founded on the principles of not just a creator, but a Christian God. "In God we trust."
CYCROFT 4 years ago
You know as well as I do that "In God we trust" is a new phrase that didn't start showing up on money until the mid 1900's. Again i'm not saying that religion didn't have an impact on peoples decisions, but this country was formed as a secular nation to avoid the problems that arose from the non-secular government of England.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
An act of congress mandated that the motto be placed on currency in 1837 and first appeared in 1864. So tell us all, why would such a "secular" government run by "secular" representatives want to put references to God on their coinage anyway? There is a distinction between "organized religion" and God/creator that you don't seem to understand.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
The concept of god does not exist outside of religion. All definitions (as vague as they may be) of god stem from religion. "God" in particular is a clear descriptor of the Christian god, and thus is not secular even by your half ass definition.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Wrong not all, for example: "a powerful ruler" and there are many alternate definitions that have nothing to do with a religion. Your definition of "God" may be "Christian God" but that does coincide with the English language definition. Also, some people call the same God "Allah" or "Jehovah".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
"a powerful ruler" is so vague that it could apply to the president or even me. "God", because of its capitalization is a proper name and thus implies a single specific god. But what of the polytheistic religions? I guess like non-believer we can just ignore them too right?
weeeezzll 4 years ago
All I'm pointing out is that "God" does not necessarily equal "God of the Christians", certainly not in the English definition of the word. The Greeks, for example, had several "Gods".
CYCROFT 4 years ago
The Greeks believed in many "gods" not "Gods". You see in the English language when you capitalize the first letter of a word it is either a proper noun, or it at the beginning of a sentence. Proper nouns refer to specific people, places and things. Thus "God" = specific god. In other words, the Abrahamic god.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
I'm corrected on Greek "gods" but "God" does not refer only to the God of Abraham in to the English dictionary. Zeus was a "God" to the Greeks.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
No Zeus was a "god" because he was one of many. "God" is not a proper pronoun except in the Abrahamic religions. See number 3 below:
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
The very notions of "justice" and "right" are defined by what is good and what is evil. How does a true atheist reason these concepts? For them there is no God, no creator, no good or evil and therefore no rights or justice? I argue that the only true atheists are life forms not self-aware and, therefore, them that deny creation are "self"-deniers.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
You feel that way because you are ignorant. Religion has made you that way. Vampire bats, elephants, whales, and dolphins (just to name a few) exhibit moral behavior. They certainly didn't learn it from religion.
So are you telling me that with out the Bible you would go around raping children, and killing people?
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Thank you for that, you've shown the extent of your petty intolerance and incivility yet again. Christianity may be rape and murder in your warped mind but those of us who take the 10 Commandments and the laws of Leviticus to heart know that's exactly what one is not supposed to do.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
What the fuck are you talking about? You said that the Bible or God tells you what is right and wrong and that with out them we could not know what is right or wrong. Thus you are saying that you would do wrong if you didn't know God or the Bible. But if you want to get technical about it the Bible does in fact encourage killing, slavery, rape and many other atrocious things.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Clearly you haven't read the actual text or were not paying attention like now. The Bible "encourages" nothing; it is a documentary text of accounts of various prophets, apostils and disciples. There are accounts of killing this is true; those who offended God were punished. However, as is the case throughout human history, the "atrocities" where committed by humans; not commanded by God. You have to read it and think about it to understand it.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Exodus tells the reader that those that break the sabbath "shall surely be put to death"
Numbers makes the same statement and then illustrates how you are to understand the statement. Moses and his congregation "stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded"
Maybe you should read you Bible again. I know it much much better than you think, and apparently much better than you...
weeeezzll 4 years ago
I read it every day and there are much harsher things than stonings in there; infantiside for one. But you have to understand the context and pay attention to who is doing what. Many things in there are not commanded by God, these are historical accounts. Bottom line, obey the commandments and repent (stop offending God, not just confession.)
CYCROFT 4 years ago
What part of "stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded" don't you understand?
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Like I wrote, if one offended God one was punished. I never implied the "buddy Jesus" mantra'. No, God was wrathful. But, again, context is of critical import. Many "Christians" push the "buddy Jesus" stuff and those people are hieratics in every definition of the word.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Why did Thomas Jefferson attend church regularly? Look, I can probably do a search and find something that every Pope said that the anti-God people use to claim he's an atheist. Unless you really study Jefferson's entire life and the people around him you're not going to understand this complex historical figure and put his words in the proper context.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
Because he thought that the story of Jesus and his parables had valuable lessons. He even went as far as to write The Jefferson Bible, in which he removed all of the silly dogma and left only the story of Jesus and the parables. Many non-believers continue attending church because all of their loved ones do.
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Good things Former Pres. Clinton did? I'm looking at his "record of accomplishments" and I can't find anything I'd classify as "good" for the USA. In fact, he failed to protect our interests against terrorists and several occassions not to mention humiliating us. We don't talk about the "good" Clinton did because there isn't anything.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
GREAT POINT!
repub21 4 years ago
Here are some to name a few: 1st he led the nation into a succession of stable and prosperous economic years. 2nd He fought for and saw NAFTA passed (started by Bush 41) 3rd unemployment reached record lows 4th he balanced the budget giving us the first surplus in the past 40 years. If you want more, YOU do the research. Don't be conservative, be honest!!!
turnipseed316 4 years ago
1.you and I both know the "economic" success was the result of the previos administration as is [often] the case; 2.Clinton changed certain things and we still have Mexicans streaming across the boarder for jobs, NAFTA is an utterly failed policy, 3.employment %...inheirated, balanced budget...Surplus...Guess my check is still in the mail. Anyone who does research on it knows that the "shut-down" was a dog-and-pony show and accomplished nothing in the end. Congress still over spent.
CYCROFT 4 years ago
1. Clinton adopted a 7.3% and growing unemployment rate and left Bush a stable ~4.0% rate.
2. You didn't get a check because even with a surplus in the annual budget there is a huge debt to pay off. Hmmmm...what have the last three Republican presidents done to our budget? Star wars...Gulf war...Iraq war...
Of course you knew all of this already didn't you?
weeeezzll 4 years ago
Congress controls appropriations not the President, why is this is a concept so difficult to understand?
CYCROFT 4 years ago
You bunch of poor saps! Didn't you guys know there is a switch in the back of the white house marked "economy"! All the president has to do is flip the switch, bad economy, good economy! That's how it works you bunch of young skulls full of mush!
powersellerhere 5 years ago
Just listen to why people liked President Clinton. My my, dumb Americans!!!
flatroach 5 years ago
He liked that girls pants? He really said "I'd like to get in those pants" What a loser.
flatroach 5 years ago
girl's with an apostrophe
Omega8515 5 years ago
Haha, he liked her pants?
I'm sure he just liked what was inside the pants...
ashleyisyourdisease 5 years ago
Mocking Bill Clinton is NOT a defense for how terrible George Bush is.
jjj3wright 5 years ago
Since most Republicans are Christian is only stands to reason that they would use the same tactics in politic that they use when defending their religion.
weeeezzll 5 years ago
learn religion.
Omega8515 5 years ago
What tactics do we use when defending our religion? I'm curious to know what kind of impression Christians have given you.
mackelcuchillo 5 years ago
Christians can not provide good supporting evidence for their beliefs so they spend all of their time trying to make science look bad. They think that if they can make the opposition look bad then they can make themselves look right.
weeeezzll 5 years ago
Actually there is a lot of supporting evidence for what Christians believe. Christians base their faith off the Bible. Manuscripts are continually being discovered that provide historical evidences that line up with what is written in the Bible. These manuscripts are written in the style of the time the Bible is describing.
mackelcuchillo 5 years ago