Bush takes one more step toward outright fascism.

Oh, then it's totally fine. Stop the presses, boys - anything Clinton did is A-OK!Out of curisosity, though - what did Clinton quash?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Yeah, but what? That's what I asked, remember? "A lot of stuff" isn't specific enough. "China-gate"?An example of what Janet Reno did is not an example of what Clinton did.

Your source for these allegations? You'll pardon me my skepticism. I'm no Clinton partisan - I never voted for the guy - but its quite amazing, the fiction dreamed up in the right-wing fever swamps about the Clinton presidency.

That doesn't substantiate your claim, I'm afriad. Moreover, your own source continues:

quote:

---

A United States House of Representatives investigation, headed by Republican Dan Burton, also focused on allegations of campaign finance abuse, including the contributions channeled through Chung, Huang, Trie, et al.

​

The investigation was lengthy, spanning both the 105th and 106th Congresses, and according to a Democratic report had cost over $7.4 million as of August 31, 1998, making it the most expensive Congressional investigation ever (the Senate Watergate investigation cost $7 million in 1998 dollars).[72]

​

The investigation itself was controversial, attracting criticism from partisans and moderates. Norman Ornstein, a Congressional expert at the American Enterprise Institute said in May 1998, "Barring some dramatic change, I think the Burton investigation is going to be remembered as a case study in how not to do a congressional investigation and as a prime example of investigation as farce."[73] A New York Times editorial characterized the committee's investigation as a "travesty" and a "parody".[74] A Washington Post editorial called the House investigation "its own cartoon, a joke, and a deserved embarrassment".[75]

---

I don't see anything in there about the sale of military secrets.

Actual substantiation of allegations, not simply the repetition of them. The fact that you've shown that you're simply repeating allegations that others have made is not substantiation.Where's the evidence? Not the allegations, the evidence? Anonymous testimony? Alleged actions?On a side note, if the president decides to share military technology, how can that be illegal? Doesn't the president have the final say on what is classified and what is not? Holy shit! A secretary of Asian trade meeting with Asian diplomats!? Stop the presses!

No idea what you're talking about. Since when is it illegal for a US VP to enter a Buddhist temple? I guess it would be, if you had provided any of that. Can you do so now?

I guess I still don't know what you're talking about. Bush speaks at fundraising events all the time. If it's illegal, under what provision of the campaign finance code that was present at the time is that the case? Yes. The tapes etc. were alleged to exist, and alleged to contain something incriminating, but the link gave no evidence for those allegations. And neither have you.

I understand pretty clearly that, like Whitewater and the Vince Foster "murder", this is mostly just another one of those right-wing generated fake conspiracies. The fact that you've failed to present any evidence now at about 100 posts pretty much proves it.

I guess I missed it. Can you provide it? Your source is an official DNC spokesperson, then? You can provide that statement? Why? Oh, right. You think I'm some kind of Clinton partisan. I can assure you that I never, ever voted for the man; and that I voted against Gore in 2000, as well.Sorry, but that's not going to fly. Don't mistake your complete failure to provide compelling evidence with some kind of resistance to evidence on my part. I've given you over 100 posts to provide evidence, and the best you have are allegations repeated by a Wikipedia article and some video that I was supposed to have seen at some time.

When you're ready to provide evidence, there's a number of threads waiting for you to do just that, to me and many others. But I suppose they're dishonest, too?How hard it must be for you to be the only honest man. What are the odds that so many of us liars and charlatans would congregate at a website, only to bedevil you?

Clinton and Gore never were prosecuted or convicted.

Because hearsay testimony proves nothing. An anyonymoous associate of a dead man? That's a hearsay allegation, not proof of anything. I asked you to provide something to substantiate those allegations, and all you've done is repeat them.Apparently you don't understand the standard of evidence? Because you're not meeting it. Which is why we're accurately and truthfully asserting that you've provided no evidence. You've provided many posts, to be sure. The problem is that every single one of them contains nothing but assertions. Repeating your assertions doesn't substantiate them.

deletedEdited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

But looking at it another way - perhaps America does often head down the road to perdition, until the watchful sound the alarm and rouse us from our slumber long enough to avert the current crisis. In that case the doomsayers fulfill a very vital role indeed.

The opposite ruling in the Kelo decision would have spelled chaos for the country. If you can't use eminent domain for any private purpose, there's hundreds of thousands of acres of railroad land - crucially important for the movement of goods and food products in our country - that would have to be reverted to the ancestors of their original owners.At any rate, none of the opposition to the Kelo decision seems to be able to explain why creating jobs and revitalizing blighted urban areas constitutes an improper state interest. And most of the states have acted to make explicit what they consider public use, so the decision of the Supreme Court was not "nobody can stop a city from taking whatever they want", but rather "it's the role of the state to regulate eminent domain."That's federalism at it's best. It's not at all clear to me why you think that's the wrong decision, or where the Court has extended their power beyond Constitutional limits.