Was Clinton More Conservative Than Bush?

that allowed [Clinton] and Vince Foster to hide resources in Switzerland.

This is complete balderdash.

There was some disinformation about airplane ticket charges to Foster's American Express account, but otherwise there is no evidence that Foster ever had any dealings with anyone for anyone in Switzerland (Am I the only one who wondered why the only charges reported were airplane tickets to Switzerland? I mean, didn't they guy ever charge anything else, especially while he was traveling? And what did it take to make that report? - Why no more effor than I am making right now.)

ML/NJ

I'm certainly not defending mcVeigh. What I am saying is that he didn't act alone. There is plenty to support that: Gen. Partin's (a retired munitions expert) analysis showing that the bldg. could only have been brought down by internally placed bombs placed inside/against structural columns (it must be somewhere on the web), the fact that seismographic evidence shows more than one explosion, the fact that the BATF were told not to report in that day, the fact that videotapes of the bldg. were never released, the fact that David Schippers vouches for a reporter's affadavits of witnesses negating the govt. allegation that he acted alone (it was hard to find witnesses who saw him alone and not in the company of an Arab-looking guy) and the fact that DS correctly stated in Aug. of last year that the NYC financial district was in trouble, the fact that McVeigh's defense was not allowed to assert others' involvement in his trial, the fact that the govt. was in a huge hurry to bury the evidence, the fact that Waco files were kept in the Murrrah Bldg., the fact that Rep. Key was dissatisfied with the whole govt. scenario and gave up his career to get to the bottom of things... There's more, but, frankly, I forget some of it now.

As far as Terry Nichols goes, I don't know why he doesn't seem to present the threat McVeigh did. I do know the TN was in the Philippines (I know his wife is from there) and there is a story that an informer who met with him is now dead because of a hit on him but his wife on her deathbed connected some dots back to OKC. I think that's when the Bojinka Project surfaced.

Karla Faye Tucker et al. are testimony to W's "tough on crime" stance.

I could not re-visit this thread sooner. It has grown a lot.

Common Tater, your points, as usual, are very well taken.

However, you also said "This is a nation of the people, for the people and by the people. You seem to think it is of the president, by the president and for the president. People not presidents are the answer."

I disagree with you in your use of that statement in that manner. And it is actually quite a wrong inference about what I think considering the short comment I made, which was only this: "Self-Explanatory. There's nothing good about Clinton but the conservative changes we expect are not being pushed forcefully by this administration. We are going to have irreversible losses if we are not careful. Pray for President Bush and try to influence government officials to stick to limited government."

LIMITED GOVERNMENT is the agreement that we live under in this land, NOT democratic tyranny of the masses spurred on by the promise of bread and circuses, which is what your statement implies. (I do not think you think that either, but you must have shot from the hip in the statement.) Neither people nor presidents are the answer. Limited government is the answer, and is (was) the essence of American greatness.

The limits on government are in writing in the constitution and are quite plain, and I heard George Bush swear to uphold them. However, he seems to have no concept whatsoever of either the ninth or the tenth amendments and regularly violates his oath of office by advocating and assisting in the implementation of illegal law.

Presidents are NOT allowed to "go wherever the people want to go," PERIOD. Just because Clinton and others have abused the power of the executive office does not make such a state permanent or proper. In these United States of America the government is strictly limited.

When I stated this FACT: "the conservative changes we expect are not being pushed forcefully by this administration," what I simply meant was that we expected a change to an administration that would NOT usurp the powers of the office for various "activist" causes like other have. We expected a conservative administration during which we would not have to constantly "watchdog" in order to block activist law and bureaucracy constantly foisted upon us, as happened so often under Clinton.

We have not gained much at all toward what we expected, and despite the thus far slight improvement in appointments (blame past mistakes related to letting the Senate get into a position in which the disgusting Sen. Jeffords had any role), every day in the Bush administration more and more unconstitutional programs are being set in cement to harass us and eat out our substance in the future.

I am amazed that the president seems afraid to offending the liberal factions with whom he so often compromises, but does not seem afraid to fail to live up to the very agreements (the Constitution) that he swore to. Since he is an honest and sincere and Christian man I can only think that he must actually accept the idea that the tenth amendment is dead and can be ignored, and that the Constitution is and only is whatever the courts say it is.

And accordingly, you UNFORTUNATELY are exactly right that Bush follows this strategy: "Find out where the people want to go. Then lead them there." It is most unfortunate indeed for those of us who want to be protected from the tyranny of the majority by the limitations on government guaranteed by our constitution.

what are we supposed to do though? vote for a democrat?

BTT

Bush now goes to Mosques as well as making the US Govenrment larger than it was under Clinton.

HOW CONSERVATIVE IS PRESIDENT BUSH?

Conservatives Question Dubya's Direction

"Now that he has turned - the only appropriate word for Bushes mix of expanded government and central control of business is "fascist" - Bush has sold out the only remaining freedom-loving people in America - people like us."

Washington's $782 Billion Spending Spree

Interesting story!

"Despite the fact that the Republicans control the White House, the House of Representatives, and 30 governorships, the nation is now in the midst of the biggest government spending spree since LBJ. Incredibly, the domestic social welfare budget has expanded more in just two years ($96 billion) under George W. Bush than in Bill Clinton's first six years in office ($51 billion)."

I haven't changed my position since September 2001. Subsequent events have only confirmed that clinton won, and the taliban won.