|
Post by Challenger on May 15, 2004 13:02:36 GMT -5
I think its more likely he's trying to show honesty and openess.
It wouldn't come to a supprise to the majority that war crimes were committed in Vietnam.
Challenger
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 15, 2004 13:38:34 GMT -5
You didn't get the point did you, Galedon? It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I'd rather an open person than that pig-headed and obviously corrupt Bush in government.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on May 15, 2004 14:23:29 GMT -5
Ah, now we see the side of the road your standing on.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 15, 2004 16:15:18 GMT -5
That made no sense either.
Galedon, if you're going to post an logically contstructed argument, then by all means, do so. Otherwise, please let the rest of us hold a discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on May 15, 2004 20:41:09 GMT -5
Umm, Galadon, after a what, two year investigation, Clinton was NEVER charged, nor was he impeached. Please pick up a newspaper once in a while.
And, again, what does either Kerry's or Clinton's record have to do with Bush using political partisanship to control scientific research?
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 15, 2004 20:44:16 GMT -5
Nothing at all, unless I've missed something really important, which I doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Merkuri on May 16, 2004 10:44:24 GMT -5
Umm, Galadon, after a what, two year investigation, Clinton was NEVER charged, nor was he impeached. This was getting off-topic and I wasn't going to get involved, but I feel that I need to correct this. Clinton WAS impeached. Impeach can mean "to bring an accusation against" ( Merriam-Webster Online), and he was formally accused and investigated. However, he was aquitted and was never removed from office (how most people choose to interpret the word, though it's not the legal deffinition). Nixon, on the other hand, was never impeached, he resigned before they could accuse him. So Clinton was the FIRST president to be impeached in the US.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on May 16, 2004 12:39:17 GMT -5
Yes Clinton was Impeached, he just was removed from office. two separate things.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 16, 2004 13:52:13 GMT -5
And, again, what does either Kerry's or Clinton's record have to do with Bush using political partisanship to control scientific research? Still waiting for an answer to this.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on May 16, 2004 14:32:10 GMT -5
Control, I won't think ignoring would be the answer. if it doesn't have any relavance to current situations, it can wait. Anyway isn't that the EPA job.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 16, 2004 15:26:53 GMT -5
It does have relevance to current issues, though, because this is another nail in the coffin for the current American administration.
I have to admit, I do like Bush the person, but I hate Bush tha American president. He's making some pretty bad choices.
|
|
|
Post by Galadon on May 16, 2004 15:41:12 GMT -5
Some people didn't like Reagan either, yet his second term he won big. He was one of the most effective presidents we ever had.
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 16, 2004 17:05:33 GMT -5
I don't know much about the history of American presidents, so I'm not really to qualified to have an opinion one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on May 17, 2004 4:01:58 GMT -5
Reagan, effective, oh yeah. Largest spending deficit, up to now. Iran Contra. Grenada. Largest recession since the 1930's. Highest unemployment rates. With presidents like that, you don't need enemies. BTW, get your facts straight. Please, please try to get your facts straight. From here: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.res.00611:
|
|
|
Post by Chahiero on May 17, 2004 21:36:12 GMT -5
Up until now, Hussar, I think America managed to find someone worse. Two wars already, and I'm sure another one is up his sleeve, once he has justification for it.
|
|