Busyman resorting to personal insults makes you sound to quote yourself:
you sound stupid as hell.
Clinton lied under oath and to me that makes it a big deal.
Busyman resorting to personal insults makes you sound to quote yourself:
you sound stupid as hell.
Clinton lied under oath and to me that makes it a big deal.
Hank... i hate to sound like a broken record here but your opinion is in the eyes of the law a false statement.Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 July 2004 - 19:23
Clinton lied under oath and to me that makes it a big deal.
Clinton was found NOT GUILTY of the charges.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
I should have known better than to post something negative about Clinton in your thread. You’ll never see him for what he really is. How are you coming along with your copy of My Life?
So, your going to admit that Bush is a lying Drunk Driver, then Hank?
After all, he was found guilty of that at his trial....
I'd say putting lives at risk while driving under the influence was a little worse than a Blow Job... no matter what you think.
So now that the Bush/Clinton basing has finished... can we get back On Topic?
An It Harm None, Do What You Will
The there is one thing about Bush being caught driving drunk; he wasn’t President Of The United States at the time.
Back on topic:
I really pains me to say this but I actually agree with this. More agreement between you and I means hell gets a little bit colderBoth these parties get Corporate sponsorship, and both then give "Favours" to the sponsors.
Bush, its the Oil & Energy Companies that get the headlines (although they arent the only ones that have received backhanders, just look at pharmacutical companies)
Clinton it was the Automobile Companies thatr can be readily pointed at (1st President since the 70s NOT to increase the mpg targets of Motor Companies... for both terms)
US isnt alone in this, look at the favouritism that New Labour gave to the Formula 1/Tobacco Lobby (and they "just happened" to give a substantial donation..).
The fairest way, in my opinion, is to make all Direct or Indirect Donations illegal... any monies received can then be classed as a "Bribe" (which they are) and dealt with as such.
Make each Candidate/Party have to have a certain number of signatures to qualify for State/Federal funding, and the Campaign has to stay within that Budget.... If they go over, then Auditors should publically go through the campaign to see where the extra money came from and the Candidate barred from office.
Sound Harsh?
Well if he cant budget his campaign over 6-9 month, what right has he to be in charge of the countries Budget over 4 years? He just proved he cant do it.
The Parties will be forced to actually stick to the issues or risk losing all their Campaign Budget in stupid Ads that only tell half truths and are out of context.
Bush sends 18 year olds to do die over bullshit and that's a bigger deal.Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@11 July 2004 - 22:23
Busyman resorting to personal insults makes you sound to quote yourself:
you sound stupid as hell.
Clinton lied under oath and to me that makes it a big deal.
@Rat- I agree as well.
Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!
Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
---12323---4552-----
2133--STRENGTH--8310
344---5--5301---3232
I agree too. I always wondered why it was ok to accept all these millions of dollars for the campaigns just to waste it away. There are far more important things to spend that money on.
Why should it cost so much to become a president? You either have what it takes or you do not. It almost seems as if the one with the most money wins.
Of course I suppose they could be allowed to raise that money but only be allowed to spend a top dollar amount and the rest goes to fund whatever issues they campaigned on But then I suppose all those supporters would dissapear claiming previous engagements.
TD
I've never left the topic; I just can't manage this "Bush" subtraction vid suggested.Originally posted by Rat Faced@11 July 2004 - 22:57
So now that the Bush/Clinton basing has finished... can we get back On Topic?
When I do, I'll try to post, but I don't hold out much hope.
I'm practicing by trying to imagine Watergate sans Nixon, but it's just not working.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Hey Hank, are we the only ones that remember Cossavo...however it's spelled........BIlly (The Chinese dissedent) CLinton did the dame thing. It just worked out a little better.Bush sends 18 year olds to do die over bullshit and that's a bigger deal.
Oooopsy....sorry, Rat. Back on topic. They are all corrupt. We should see the papers. I'd love to see who paid who what. Might raise a few eyebrows.
BoNE
Liberal: Lib er al Someone who's mind is so open their brains fell out.
Real cars don't make horsepower at the front wheels, they lift them.
Lead, follow or get yer ass run over!
Bookmarks