Scott McClellan, of all people?! - Page 3

Christian Nelson · 05-29-2008, 05:45 PM

I don't think so. I think Clinton would have probably done the exact same things. He may have been treated differently over it by the press, but he has gone on the record (before he changed his mind) and said that he was all for invading Iraq. He has stated Afghanistan was the right thing to do.. No child left behind would have been signed by him (it was Ted kennedy's brain child after all) Let's see, oh yes, Haliburton was getting no bid contracts from the Clinton administration too, Trying to think of any real differences there may have been.

Bush was prepared to sign another assault weapon ban if it came to him, that would have been the same as Clinton.

No, I am afraid the reasons I am angry with Bush are because he tried TOO HARD to work with the Democrats, and cooperate with them..

He was very much the "moderate" people talk about. Very much not a conservative.

desertT1 · 05-29-2008, 05:46 PM

I already have to pay for the illegals' medical bills, I don't want to pay for everyone's. That's not 'change' I want.

Christian Nelson · 05-29-2008, 05:48 PM

Quote:

I already have to pay for the illegals' medical bills, I don't want to pay for everyone's. That's not 'change' I want.

Agreed, hence my not all change is good statement.

I wish just one of the candidates would basicly say NO benefits for illegals, not one government penny to them, and we will prosecute anyone who hires them..

No need to build a border fence if you do this.

WGPKlaus · 05-29-2008, 05:48 PM

Even though anyone with half a brain knows that McClellan did this soley for $$$, what I find most humorous of all, is that the very same folks at NBC/MSNBC who had referred to him as a liar and simply a "mouthpiece for the administration" among other things, now embraces him with open arms, and conveniently forget that while on his duty, these same people were convinced he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the arse. Leave it to losers like Chris Matthews and that washed up loudmouth Olbermann to prove time and time again how skewed they really are, and objectivety is not a word in their dictionary!

desertT1 · 05-29-2008, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Nelson

Agreed, hence my not all change is good statement.

I wish just one of the candidates would basicly say NO benefits for illegals, not one government penny to them, and we will prosecute anyone who hires them..

No need to build a border fence if you do this.

I'm not sure if it's a national trend, but we have an 'employer sanctions law' here and it is constantly under attack by Dems all the way up the ladder. Employers would get punished for knowingly hiring illegals. A few months ago 11 illegals were arrested from a panda express and eventually charged with identity theft. The governor in her infinite wisdom is now trying to completely gut the bill.

McCain may be from here, but he's been little help for the illegal problem. He's strong on some issues, but immigration is definitely not something he has a handle on. Our Border Patrol does a great job here, but don't get enough credit. Cops do great work also busting coyotes and drug groups alike.

drg · 05-29-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Nelson

I don't think so. I think Clinton would have probably done the exact same things. He may have been treated differently over it by the press, but he has gone on the record (before he changed his mind) and said that he was all for invading Iraq. He has stated Afghanistan was the right thing to do.. No child left behind would have been signed by him (it was Ted kennedy's brain child after all) Let's see, oh yes, Haliburton was getting no bid contracts from the Clinton administration too, Trying to think of any real differences there may have been.

There is some point to this but I think it's naive to assume things would have played out exactly the same under Clinton or under Democrats in general. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and something as simple as public presence can completely change political outcomes.

And that's not even considering the other 90+% of what's happened in the last 8 years that pertains to presidential politics.

Mar · 05-29-2008, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PistolPete

Not to mention the fact that I doubt that you really know what happened and didn't happen, one can only guess.

well sir, you must be new here: Christian Nelson actually knows everything

HP_Lovecraft · 05-29-2008, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drg

There is some point to this but I think it's naive to assume things would have played out exactly the same under Clinton or under Democrats in general.

Operation Desert Thunder 1998
Operation Desert Fox 1999

Those were 2 huge military attacks planned by Clinton, and top generals to remove Saddam, and install a democracy. They both used Saddam, and his missing WMD's has pretext to the invasion.

At the last second, Saddam back down and gave in to demands, and the invasions were stopped at the last second.

According to the "Downing Street Memos", Bush and Blair agreed to continue the "Clinton Plan", which is what we have today.

The point is that it doesnt do any good to say "Democract-this" and "Republican-that". A bad plan is a bad plan regardless.

nick

heinous · 05-29-2008, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mar

well sir, you must be new here: Christian Nelson actually knows everything

it's all contained in the 1 book that you ever need to read

bulldog_TT · 05-29-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mar

well sir, you must be new here: Christian Nelson actually knows everything

I may be wrong here but i think Pete was speaking of drg

05-29-2008, 05:45 PM	#21 (permalink)
Christian Nelson MCB Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Wisconsin	I don't think so. I think Clinton would have probably done the exact same things. He may have been treated differently over it by the press, but he has gone on the record (before he changed his mind) and said that he was all for invading Iraq. He has stated Afghanistan was the right thing to do.. No child left behind would have been signed by him (it was Ted kennedy's brain child after all) Let's see, oh yes, Haliburton was getting no bid contracts from the Clinton administration too, Trying to think of any real differences there may have been. Bush was prepared to sign another assault weapon ban if it came to him, that would have been the same as Clinton. No, I am afraid the reasons I am angry with Bush are because he tried TOO HARD to work with the Democrats, and cooperate with them.. He was very much the "moderate" people talk about. Very much not a conservative. __________________ The greatest want of the world is the want of men- men who will not be bought or sold, men who in their inmost souls are true and honest, men who do not fear to call sin by it's right name, men who's concience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole, men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall.

05-29-2008, 05:48 PM	#24 (permalink)
WGPKlaus Active Member Join Date: Jun 2006	Even though anyone with half a brain knows that McClellan did this soley for $$$, what I find most humorous of all, is that the very same folks at NBC/MSNBC who had referred to him as a liar and simply a "mouthpiece for the administration" among other things, now embraces him with open arms, and conveniently forget that while on his duty, these same people were convinced he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the arse. Leave it to losers like Chris Matthews and that washed up loudmouth Olbermann to prove time and time again how skewed they really are, and objectivety is not a word in their dictionary!