View Full Version : President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws
subgenius
12th April 2003, 12:16 AM
July 30, 1996
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.
"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.
But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.
....
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend.
.....
"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
....
http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism/
Pyrrho
12th April 2003, 08:58 AM
Now, now, Subgenius, you know that was pre-9/11 -- before we "lost our innocence".
Mel
12th April 2003, 09:58 AM
What right did Clinton have to discuss anything other than his penis? Obviously, this was just another attempt by Clinton to change the subject.
Thank goodness Lott & the Republicans didn't let him get away with it.
subgenius
12th April 2003, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Mel
What right did Clinton have to discuss anything other than his penis? Obviously, this was just another attempt by Clinton to change the subject.
Thank goodness Lott & the Republicans didn't let him get away with it.
You got it backward, they tried to keep him from discussing anything but.....
Wonder how Hatch stood on wiretaps this time around....
Mel
12th April 2003, 10:33 AM
Well that's exactly what I said (or thought I did)..... they ONLY wanted him reduced to speaking of his penis.
The nice thing is that it also set up things so well to later blame Cinton for having done nothing about anything.
It also lowered the bar for the next president quite nicelyly..... the only requirement being that he not have sex with an intern to be considered as having impeccable morals.
subgenius
12th April 2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Mel
Well that's exactly what I said (or thought I did)..... they ONLY wanted him reduced to speaking of his penis.
The nice thing is that it also set up things so well to later blame Cinton for having done nothing about anything.
It also lowered the bar for the next president quite nicelyly..... the only requirement being that he not have sex with an intern to be considered as having impeccable morals.
Detecting sarcasm is not one of my strong points.:confused:
Mel
12th April 2003, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by subgenius
Detecting sarcasm is not one of my strong points.:confused:
And I keep forgetting not everyone is from New York. lol
Now if I could just remember to use that :rolleyes: smiley more often, it would probably make my posts easier to decipher. :)
Wayne Grabert
12th April 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Mel
It also lowered the bar for the next president quite nicelyly..... the only requirement being that he not have sex with an intern to be considered as having impeccable morals.
:D Very astute observation, Mel.
Larry Flynt has established himself as having far more credibility than Bush. When Flynt said he had dirt on Bob Livingston, he proved it. When he said he had dirt on Bob Barr, he proved it. When he said he had dirt on Dan Burton, he proved it. When Bush claimed (through Colin Powell) that he had proof of Saddam's renewed nuclear weapons program, he used forged documents.
According to the impeccable Mr. Flynt ;) , when Duh-bya was in his 20's he impregnated a 15 year-old girl (something Scott Rittner has not done, Rikzilla) and arranged for her illegal abortion. Flynt claims to have the affidavits of three people who were friends of the girl at the time who know what happened. Flynt won't reveal the identity of the girl because she has told him that she does not want to go public. Too bad. That would go over well with Duh-bya's Bible thumper base.
EDITED TO ADD: Here is a good article (http://www.bettybowers.com/newsbush.html) on that story from a reliable source.
Wolverine
12th April 2003, 02:12 PM
A politician ... flip-flop on issues??? Gee, what are the odds? ;)
shanek
12th April 2003, 04:08 PM
It just goes to show what I've said all along—there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
corplinx
12th April 2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by shanek
It just goes to show what I've said all along—there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Yes there is, Democrats by far have better haircuts. Except for Jim Traficant and Alan Colmes that is
subgenius
13th April 2003, 12:19 AM
Did you know that Laura ran a stop sign and killed someone?
http://www.bartcop.com/pickles2.htm
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2000/tabloid.html
Questions Still Surround Laura Bush's Midland Tragedy
from THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS, May 4, 2000
"Report Finds Fatal Crash Attriutable to Mrs. Bush"
"The wife of Gov. George W. Bush was responsible for a traffic accident that killed a high school classmate in Midland 37 years ago, according to a newly released accident report. Investigators said a 1963 Chevrolet driven by Mrs. Bush - then Laura Welch, a high school senior - ran a stop sign and struck a Chevrolet Corvair driven by Michael Douglas. Copies of the accident report - parts of which are illegible - were released Wednesday by Midland City Attorney Keith Stretcher after state Attorney General John Cornyn held that the information was public....Mr. Stretcher, the Midland city attorney, initially declined to release any information about the accident on the grounds that it involved minors and therefore was exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act. He also contended that disclosing the information would violate the parties' privacy rights. Police listed two violations as contributing to the accident, both by Mrs. Bush. One checked box read "disregard stop sign or light," and the other was illegible....Both drivers were Robert E. Lee High School students. Neither was drinking, and no citations were issued, according to the report." (more from DMN)
Wayne Grabert
13th April 2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by shanek
It just goes to show what I've said all along—there's no real difference between Democrats and Republicans.
There isn't when it comes to foreign policy. They're both interventionist. :mad:
Corplinx is right about the haircuts, though. Here is a
fine example. (http://www.mccullagh.org/image/d30-30/al-sharpton.html)
corplinx
13th April 2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by subgenius
Did you know that Laura ran a stop sign and killed someone?
No I didn't. After reading the article, I can only wonder why someone dug up something like that. I guess they want her to relive the pain of knowing she accidentally killed someone?
© 2001-2009, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
vBulletin® v3.7.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.