Bill Clinton On The Subject Of Domestic Terrorism

Discussion in 'Politics' started by momonkey, Apr 20, 2010.

  1. momonkey
    Offline

    momonkey simianus restituo officiu

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +37
    We all heard Clinton admonish Tea Party protesters to shut up about expansion of government, taxes and deficit spending so we don't set off another McVeigh. I guess that's reasonable if we ignore the fact that the main reason McVeigh had such hate for the federal government was the Clinton Administration's heavy handed assault on the Branch Dividian's complex using the same strain of federal thugs who shot fourteen year-old Samuel Weaver in the back as he fled for his life and Vicki Weaver in the head as she carried a baby in her arms.

    The only other problem I see with Bubba leading the effort to combat terrorism by chilling the people's free speech is the seldom mentioned and mysterious presidential pardon of sixteen members of the Marxist-Leninist Puerto Rican terrorist organization FALN in 1999. These domestic terrorist's crimes included conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, sedition, and firearms and explosives violations. Oh, and let's not forget the Clinton pardon of Weather Underground members Linda Sue Evans and Susan Rosenberg who had been sent to prison for weapons and explosives charges.

    The terrorist acts of these people were certainly deserving of long prison sentences, but let's be real. None of that compares to showing up in a public park with misspelled protest signs and tiny Lipton tea bags stapled to a floppy summer hat while having the audacity to actually question the actions of the state.

    The Clintons' Terror Pardons - WSJ.com

    Kill a Boy, Get a Medal

    Clinton Pardon's List
     
  2. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Clinton's intellect leveled out at the age of 3. He's a jack ass.
     
  3. momonkey
    Offline

    momonkey simianus restituo officiu

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +37


    It's not just that. His hypocrisy is staggering. To free those particular individuals when other were not indicates a definite sympathy to their cause and an indifference to terrorist methods being employed. I really think radical Clinton identifies with these terrorists.
     
  4. Nonelitist
    Offline

    Nonelitist BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +183
    Mcveigh did what he did mainly because of what Clintons administration did in Waco.
     
  5. momonkey
    Offline

    momonkey simianus restituo officiu

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    249
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +37

    The LSM is just parroting the propaganda of the left about Tea Party participants setting off another McVeigh. Only Fox is even mentioning Clinton's terrorist pardons.
     
  6. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    Heavens knows I don't agree with, or particularly like, the Clintons. But his point is valid. Words matter.

    There was a lot of hyped up partisan talk under Clinton, and a lot of crazy folks went out and armed up. They joined militias and started training. They went a little crazy and were egged on by alarmists more interested in making money than actually investigating facts. And eventually, one loony toon snapped and a lot of good folks died.

    Disagreement is fine. Vocal disagreement is fine. But there is a line. If you get too worked up, someone snaps and someone gets hurt. Its why we make laws preventing idiots from shouting "FIRE!" in a Movie Theater or publically advocating assasination, and its why those laws stand up to SCOTUS scruitiny. Words matter. And the wrong words can lead to violence.

    That's probably going to happen again this time. That crazy militia in Indiana isn't a unique event. Someone's going to get killed because the partisan rhetoric is at the point where people think the communists have taken over using a Kenyan and force is now justified.

    The big question is this: Ruby Ridge or Oklahoma City? If we don't dial back the rhetoric, it'll end in one of those two ways.
     
  7. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I don't remember handing over any of my inalienable rights of free speech to the government in this regard. I'm trying to figure out what legal justification you have to believe that people should be censored? I can't even figure what justification you have for censoring people who do want to harm the government? Isn't that their right to speak out and do so if they want?
     
  8. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    I agree. I use to think that Clinton was kind of smart until he said the most simplest explanation about the revolutionary war and that it was taxation without representation. That was just one of the reasons (which he probably got from an old schoolhouse rock video). The declaration of independence list a whole bunch of reasons for the secession from Great Britain.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    But, but Clowntoon is no longer president.

    LOL.
     
  10. Dr.Traveler
    Offline

    Dr.Traveler Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    3,943
    Thanks Received:
    652
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    In a Non-Euclidean Manifold
    Ratings:
    +1,052
    You have free speech, but not freedom from consequences of that speech. That's why you can get sued for libel, arrested for creating a public nuisance or menace, or get tossed in Gitmo for advocating the assasination of a President.

    Your rights always end where someone else's rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness begins. Once your speech causes injury to another person, you always open yourself up to consequences.

    First, I'm not advocating external censorship. I'm advocating that people be aware their words have consequences. Different matter entirely.

    Second, even if I were there's precedent for controlling what is put out there in the media. Anyone recall Janet Jackson's nipple slip? Or how about Carlin's skit about words you can't say on TV?

    Advocating assasination of a public official is a crime. Look up the story about the Purdue Graduate student that ended up God knows where (probably Gitmo) for his posts on the internet advocating violence against Bush, Cheney, and their families.

    Post 9/11, like it or not, advocating violence or training in preparation for violence against the USA could land you a spot on the "Enemy Combantants" list.

    You always have the right to speak out. You can be very vocal about it. I may not always agree with you, for example, but I do agree you have a right to speak out as you see fit.

    Once someone advocates violence or breaking the law, that's a whole other issue.

    Peaceful civil disobediance? Sure.

    Public rallies? Sure.

    Bombing/Attacking local Federal Buildings? Here's your ticket to Gitmo. Enjoy the trip.
     

Share This Page