for Top Gun...

[Truth-Bringer]

Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack?

Well, you can deny it all you like, but you're a pure partisan.

I would just say with all due respect... talk is cheap until you have to actually govern something.

Indeed talk is cheap, and what have the actions of the Democrats and Republicans given us? Almost $9 trillion in debt, high taxes, a fiat currency whose value is continuously declining, and massive corruption in government. Yes, talk is cheap. Their actions speak loud and clear.

If it's your belief that somehow Libertarians have all the answers and things would just be so rosy if they were just given a chance

Well I think we should certainly be given a chance. Experimentation is the foundation of the scientific method. I submit that anyone who refuses to experiment is unscientific and irrational.

But there would be no utopia under Libertarians. Utopia isn't possible. But there would be liberty and a respect for rights.

As far as having the answers, it is you collectivists that believe you have all the answers. You are the controllers. You are the ones who threaten people with force if they don't do what you want them to do.

I'd say the American people are not buying that sells job in large numbers for a reason.

Appeal to the majority fallacy.

I don't see that I'm persuading you toward the truth of the matter

No, you're trying to persuade me to accept your fallacious beliefs. I only accept logical truths discerned through deductive reasoning and the scientific method.

How about... how about. How about if frogs had wings. Then they wouldn't bump their butts on the ground when they hopped.

Appeal to ridicule fallacy.

Politics breed many attacks and allegations. If there were any legal charges I didn't hear about I'm sure you'll fill me in.

Indeed. I guess you missed this one:

Appellate Court Upholds Nearly $900,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Clinton Scandal FOIA Lawsuit

Clinton Administration Destroyed Documents Involving Illegal Scheme to Sell Taxpayer-Funded Trade Missions for Campaign Contributions

(Washington, DC) –Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. upheld the vast majority of a lower court award to Judicial Watch of nearly $900,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in a lawsuit related to the Clinton fundraising scandals (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce, Appeal No. 05-5366) The fees were awarded on December 1, 2006, after a nearly decade-long court battle between Judicial Watch and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The scandal involved a scheme by Clinton administration officials to sell seats on taxpayer-funded trade missions in exchange for campaign contributions to the 1996 Clinton-Gore campaign. When Judicial Watch began investigating the scandal, Clinton administration officials deliberately concealed and destroyed records regarding the trade missions to avoid releasing them to Judicial Watch. In fact, Ms. Nolanda Hill, a business partner and confidante of then-Clinton Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, testified at a dramatic court hearing during the litigation that the Clinton White House “instructed” Brown "to delay the [Judicial Watch] case by withholding the production of documents prior to the 1996 elections, and to devise a way not to comply with the court’s orders.

Ms. Hill also testified that Brown, who was killed in a plane crash during a trade mission to Bosnia, admitted to her that Hillary Clinton conceived of the scheme to sell trade mission seats. Specifically, the court heard testimony on how Brown allegedly complained about being “Hillary’s [expletive] tour guide.”

Clinton administration misconduct was so egregious that the Commerce Department took the unprecedented step of asking that a judgment be entered against itself in order to end the lawsuit prematurely and stop further revelations. The court denied the Commerce Department’s request, ordered it to conduct a new search for trade mission records and authorized additional discovery into the illegal concealment and destruction of government records."

Full article here.

Now, I'm sure you'll try and spin this since Judicial Watch pursued it, but they have gone after Republicans as well, such as Dick Cheney:

http://foi.missouri.edu/usenergypolicies/cheneytakes.html

So please don't start screaming "vast right wing conspiracy" top gun, I'm sorry, it's not a conspiracy. The Clintons are corrupt and always have been. Some people are just blind to the truth and refuse to believe it.

If you think Bill Clinton was the first man in a high political power position to have an affair you are seriously misguided.

No, but I do believe Bill Clinton was the only President to ever be accused of rape. And I do believe Bill Clinton was alleged to have far more affairs than any other President in history. His behavior was reckless, plain and simple.

I'm sorry but even with spin little of this is true. It is true SOME Democrats in Congress were against some of the spending cuts. Clinton was not... and that's my point. As I said before... believe the Republicans are frugal and the Dems are the spenders if you perfer... but no one else believes that anymore because you can't hide the numbers.

Oh the Republicans have proven to everyone that they're not frugal spenders, as they gave Bush everything he wanted and more. As I said in the beginning, it really wasn't a matter of principle for them - IT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE to deny Clinton additional spending.

As for Clinton's spending - he always wanted more than the Republicans. Here's a clip from a CNN article: "But the House-Senate compromise is $2 billion less than what the president wanted for foreign aid."

If you claim Clinton was the one holding down spending against the Republicans, then produce and present evidence of that.

Here's an article showing pressure from Democrats in Congress to make him cut spending further - Clinton didn't want to do it until moderate and conservative Democrats kept pressuring him:

"President Clinton agreed Monday to roughly $55 billion more in spending cuts over the next five years, responding to pressure from House and Senate Democrats and calculations by the Congressional Budget Office that he needed to cut more to reach his deficit-reduction target."

See, it's easy to find evidence of the contrary, when I know your belief is false. CLINTON DIDN'T WANT TO CUT ANYTHING. He wanted to spend, spend, spend, like the liberal he was, but he was held in check by others.

And as a side note: Libertarian isolationism won't stop that either and you know it.

First of all, one does not have to be Libertarian to be a non-interventionist. The policy has worked well for Switzerland for hundreds of years. It was American's original foreign policy and we should return to our roots on the matter.

Well then perhaps we've uncovered your real problem. It's election envy .

Again, appeal to ridicule fallacy.

As far a Ron Paul I'm sure he'll get the nomination and win the election by huge numbers because the vast majority of the American people agree with you. We will see...

Again, appeal to the majority fallacy. Any other logical fallacies you'd like to use today? Here's a list to help you decide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Well I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The fact is the latest budget is probably always going to be the biggest budget because things don't ever get cheaper.

ROTFLMAO. What a load of crap. So we can never cut spending then?????

Central banking and fiat currency are soley responsible for inflation. Inflation is the result of the excess currency printed by the Federal Reserve, not any action of the private market place. Milton Friedman proved this before winning the Nobel Prize in Economics:

"... a world monetary system has emerged that has no historical precedent: a system in which every major currency in the world is, directly or indirectly, on an irredeemable paper money standard . . . It is worth stressing how little precedent there is for the present situation. Throughout recorded history . . . commodity money has been the rule. So long as money was predominantly coin or bullion, very rapid inflation was not physically feasible . . . The existence of a commodity standard widely supported by the public served as a check on inflation .. . The key challenge that now faces us in reforming our monetary and fiscal institutions is to find a substitute for convertibility into specie that will serve the same function: maintaining pressure on the government to refrain from its resort to inflation as a source of revenue. To put it another way, we must find a nominal anchor for the price level to replace the physical limit on a monetary commodity." - Milton Friedman, "Monetary Policy in a Fiat World"

The reason we've been able to avoid hyperinflation so far is because the income tax is used as a buffer against the fiat currency. If you repealed the income tax tomorrow and allowed the government to print money at the same leves they do today, you would see runaway hyperinflation similar to what happened in Germany in the 1920's.

The Federal Reserve even admits Friedman's conclusions are correct:

"The "Great Inflation" of the 1970's challenged and permanently altered economic theory. It vindicated the once-controversial analysis of Milton Friedman, then at the University of Chicago.

"Friedman's monetary framework has been so influential that in its broad outlines at least, it has nearly become identical with modern monetary theory," said the Federal Reserve governor Ben S. Bernanke, at a recent conference at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. (The full text of his speech is available here.)

Mr. Bernanke is not a former Friedman student. He did his graduate work at M.I.T. Someone reading Milton Friedman's monetary economics today is likely to miss its significance, Mr. Bernanke noted, much as an apocryphal student called Shakespeare's plays "just a string of quotations."

"His thinking has so permeated modern macroeconomics that the worst pitfall in reading him today is to fail to appreciate the originality and even revolutionary character of his ideas, in relation to the dominant views at the time that he formulated them," he said.

Against the conventional wisdom, Mr. Friedman argued that "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon." Inflation had nothing to do with aggressive unions, greedy businesses or even oil cartels -- the bad guys who took the blame in the confusing 1970's. Prices shot up everywhere because the federal government made the supply of money grow faster than the real economy created value. Based on the historical record, he argued, the effects of monetary policy were fairly predictable.

In a 1970 lecture, "The Counterrevolution in Monetary Theory," Mr. Friedman outlined 11 propositions about how monetary policy affects the economy. All were wildly controversial, almost disreputable, at the time. Most are accepted today."

Carter did have a bad economy and Reagan ran the country on credit that crashed down on his successor Bush #1 preventing him from winning a 2nd term... all true.

What's true is that government intervention always makes boom and bust cycles far worse. That is the root cause:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap9.html

I believe both to be very important. The Democratic "pay as you go" policy seemed a good strategy for one problem. Perhaps more can be done when they gain more control to work on the other because old George ain't too shabby at running up that number either.

I prefer Harry Browne's old plan - with tax REPEALS and spending cuts:

http://www.harrybrowne.org/hb2000/stands/natldebt.htm

I'm saying Reagan ran up huge debt on the arms race. That's all I said and that is true. There have almost if not always been deficits. I'm just pointing out that the pubbies love them too.

And I'm pointing out that since both Democrats and Republicans seem to love putting this country further and further into debt, which will eventually cause it great harm, the right thing to do is vote both of them out of Washington.

Believe what you like but all things can be managed well or horribly, top gun.

And the government always manages them more horribly:

http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap9.html

I'm not sure what your point is here. You win elections by being able to energize your base while still bringing in the Independent moderates.

My points are that #1 - this election was not about the public wanting the Democrats and more of their tired policies. And #2 that winning elections doesn't necessarily mean the winner will create logical policies. We need more limitations on government, outside of the electoral system, to prevent the misuse of its power.

I look forward to the sweeping Libertarian wins in 08. As I said before, we will see...

I look forward to you actually using a logical argument instead of an appeal to the majority fallacy at some point.

 

[top gun]

Truth-Bringer;16742]

Since I have been a registered Democrat... hack?

Well, you can deny it all you like, but you're a pure partisan.

Kinda the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. I think your position is pretty set in stone itself don't ya think?

Indeed talk is cheap, and what have the actions of the Democrats and Republicans given us? Almost $9 trillion in debt, high taxes, a fiat currency whose value is continuously declining, and massive corruption in government. Yes, talk is cheap. Their actions speak loud and clear.

Like I said if you ever win a election in the United States please implement all the solutions.

Well I think we should certainly be given a chance. Experimentation is the foundation of the scientific method. I submit that anyone who refuses to experiment is unscientific and irrational.

Who's stopping you? Raise the money from all your adamant supporters and run baby run!

As far as having the answers, it is you collectivists that believe you have all the answers. You are the controllers. You are the ones who threaten people with force if they don't do what you want them to do.

OK whatever. I don't even know what a collectivist is but whatever...

No, you're trying to persuade me to accept your fallacious beliefs. I only accept logical truths discerned through deductive reasoning and the scientific method.

Pretty sure I'm not. I am standing up against what I see as unfair attacks on specific individuals and institution by you. But I think you should vote Libertarian if that's what you believe is best.

Indeed. I guess you missed this one:

Appellate Court Upholds Nearly $900,000 Award in Attorney’s Fees and Costs in Clinton Scandal FOIA Lawsuit

So please don't start screaming "vast right wing conspiracy" top gun, I'm sorry, it's not a conspiracy. The Clintons are corrupt and always have been. Some people are just blind to the truth and refuse to believe it.

Come on was President Bill Clinton charged with a crime here. Not his administration President Bill Clinton? No...

No, but I do believe Bill Clinton was the only President to ever be accused of rape. And I do believe Bill Clinton was alleged to have far more affairs than any other President in history. His behavior was reckless, plain and simple.

You're right... no he wasn't ever charged with any crime like this at all. I've said before I don't care if he's Huge Hefner. He did a great job as president.

Oh the Republicans have proven to everyone that they're not frugal spenders, as they gave Bush everything he wanted and more. As I said in the beginning, it really wasn't a matter of principle for them - IT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE to deny Clinton additional spending.

Extremely misguided conclusion...

As for Clinton's spending - he always wanted more than the Republicans. Here's a clip from a CNN article: "But the House-Senate compromise is $2 billion less than what the president wanted for foreign aid."
If you claim Clinton was the one holding down spending against the Republicans, then produce and present evidence of that.

Progress by the numbers
Under President Clinton, the economy has added an average of 245,000248,000 jobs ..... Smaller Government, There are 377000 fewer employees in the Federal ...
clinton4.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/numbers.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

First of all, one does not have to be Libertarian to be a non-interventionist. The policy has worked well for Switzerland for hundreds of years. It was American's original foreign policy and we should return to our roots on the matter.

The US ain't Switzerland my friend. Communism seems to work in Cuba but don't see it working well here. America is a slightly larger canvas..

 

[palerider]

Maybe people still like because...in hindsight, they realize he wasn't so bad afterall...especially now that the rightwing spin is wearing thin.

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.

 

[top gun]

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time. You just can't deflect all the tremendous Republican failures in diplomacy and the lies and deceptions sucking us into quagmires anymore. The it's all Clinton's fault is now seen as only weak and an attempt at political slight of hand...................... Look over here.............


while were down here doing the damage.

Doesn't fly now. Won't fly in 08!

USA TODAY
01/17/2001 - Updated 08:03 PM ET

Clinton: Retired, but hardly retiring
By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY

Going out on a high

Despite his legal difficulties, Clinton leaves office with a 65% approval rating in a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling. And, barring an accident or illness - on Tuesday doctors said a lesion removed from Clinton's back was a common and treatable skin cancer, Clinton could remain active in public life for another 20 or 30 years.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time.

First of all, polls are simply glimpses of history captured by an exceedingly small majority. Polls don't mean anything. It's how unbiased history 20, 50, 100 years down the road judges a given presidency that determines its level of success.

Secondly, most Americans don't really pay much attention to politics until a few weeks before an election so just because he has an above 50% approval rating doesn't mean that he did a good job.

Like I've said before, his image as a "good" president stems from his luck of being placed right into the middle of the PC/internet boom, the fact that America didn't go to war (and Clinton largely ignored the abundance of terroristic activites at the time), and Clinton's major misstep of Somalia had slipped the American public's mind.

One last thing, you said that he was good because he didn't "crash the ship" or something along those lines. Well the fact is neither did John Quincy Adams, or Martin van Buren, or Zacahry Taylor, or James Garfield, or William Taft. Do you hold these individuals to the same status that you do Clinton?

 

[palerider]

Well then what you're doing is calling the American people idiots I guess because people seemed to have really loved it at the time. You just can't deflect all the tremendous Republican failures in diplomacy and the lies and deceptions sucking us into quagmires anymore. The it's all Clinton's fault is now seen as only weak and an attempt at political slight of hand...................... Look over here.............

I am not trying to deflect anything. It is you who is attempting to deflect the very real, and lasting realities of things that clinton did while in office by regurgitating his approval numbers as if they make it OK that he advanced china's ability to hit any target on earth with an ICBM or gave the mad dog in korea nuclear reactors.

Further, it has been shown over and over that if you do the opposite of the majority, you will be better off over 90% of the time.

 

[Coyote]

I don't know Coyote. In hindsight, and almost a decade later, the only two things that I see that clinton did that had any lasting effect was selling out our ballistic technology to the chinese and giving north korea nuclear reactors. Most of the rest, as with most presidents, was just politics but before loral, they (china) couldn't hit themselves in the ass with a missile with both hands and a flashlight. After, however, they can hit any place on earth as accurately as us. They advanced nearly 20 years overnight. And we are presently living with his decision to give a madman nuclear reactors.

In general, I liked Clinton. In terms of North Korea, I read an interesting article - I shall have to dig to find it, but the diplomacy involved with North Korea was one of choosing the best of a bunch of very bad choices and there really wasn't a better one. I don't see China as being a major military threat to us - a world power yes, but their threat is going to be in the world economy and that is where they are putting the majority of their efforts.

 

[top gun]

USMC the Almighty;16803]First of all, polls are simply glimpses of history captured by an exceedingly small majority. Polls don't mean anything. It's how unbiased history 20, 50, 100 years down the road judges a given presidency that determines its level of success.

Well at least we're getting somewhere. Now polls don't mean anything. That's better than when you said I was wrong and Clinton left office at 30% approval and I had to post the 65% USA TODAY/ CNN/ Gallup Poll numbers the highest for a departing president in the half-century of modern polling.
It's a start.

Secondly, most Americans don't really pay much attention to politics until a few weeks before an election so just because he has an above 50% approval rating doesn't mean that he did a good job.

Day is night... night is day... over 50% is still bad...I get it. WOW Bush at 27% must really suck!

I'm sticking with my original statement. Me and 65% of not one but three major scientific polls liked the job President Bill Clinton did. I'll live with that. Let's see where Bush ends up...

 

[top gun]

I am not trying to deflect anything. It is you who is attempting to deflect the very real, and lasting realities of things that clinton did while in office by regurgitating his approval numbers as if they make it OK that he advanced china's ability to hit any target on earth with an ICBM or gave the mad dog in korea nuclear reactors.

I'm just saying the neo-con line is ALL about anything bad... It's Clinton's fault. Look at the Libby thing. What was the first word out from that side? Well... well... Clinton pardoned all kinds of people.

OoooooooooK... and you guys gave him all kinds of hell for it and screamed and yelled how you opposed it and it was so wrong. Now Bush does it (even worse seriously because it actually covers up the administrations own deeds) but regardless I thought that kind of stuff was soooooo wrong. What's the rationale here because it certainly isn't principle.

It's like saying that that guy shot an innocent man... so now we can too! It's all so obvious it actually is just silly and people see it now.

Further, it has been shown over and over that if you do the opposite of the majority, you will be better off over 90% of the time.

That's of course false but even if it wasn't you'd be missing kind of a somewhat important thing about America... HELLO DEMOCRACY!

 

[palerider]

I'm just saying the neo-con line is ALL about anything bad... It's Clinton's fault. Look at the Libby thing. What was the first word out from that side? Well... well... Clinton pardoned all kinds of people.

I am not a neo-con. If any label describes me, it would be either classical liberal or paleo con as they are both the same thing. And like I said, aside from the two things that I mentioned, the rest was at best, just politics. Advancing china's ICBM technology and giving north korea nuclear reactors, on the other hand, are actions that will carry very real, and possibly terrible consequences for a very long time to come.

 

[top gun]

I am not a neo-con. If any label describes me, it would be either classical liberal or paleo con as they are both the same thing. And like I said, aside from the two things that I mentioned, the rest was at best, just politics. Advancing china's ICBM technology and giving north korea nuclear reactors, on the other hand, are actions that will carry very real, and possibly terrible consequences for a very long time to come.

Well I'm not trying to describe you... I'm just following your line.

At some point you might want to consider that the US cannot stop technology. We can work our best deals at the time and try to strategically stay one step ahead... but that's about it.

We can't deny other countries the use of peaceful nuclear power and believe me there are plenty of ways China can improve their ICBM technolog without the United States.

I don't see the United States attacking other countries because they develop nuclear power. Nuclear weapons maybe but not just power.

Technology is out there. You can't put the "Genie" back in the bottle. Everyday new and amazing things will be developed and if you're scared now you may need to reevaluate.

Because killing everybody else off so we're the only ones that have what we want and need probably isn't they way things will turn out.

All Americans Left or Right want their family & friends to be safe. That's just human nature. Fear mongering and pointing the "my side cares more about our children's safety than yours" finger is counter productive and I'd hope both sides could find the strength to restrain themselves from it.

 

[palerider]

At some point you might want to consider that the US cannot stop technology. We can work our best deals at the time and try to strategically stay one step ahead... but that's about it.

Prior to the loral deal, china was 20 years behind us and would have remained at least 10 because even our closest allies are getting technology that is 10 years old.

And china could have given north korea reactors at any time but they didn't. Ever wonder why?

We can't deny other countries the use of peaceful nuclear power and believe me there are plenty of ways China can improve their ICBM technolog without the United States.

You are familiar with north korea aren't you? How many eggs short of a dozen do you believe you would have to be to take his word that a nuclear reactor given to him would be "peaceful" nuclear power?

And I restate. They were 20 years behind us with little hope of narrowing that gap. The russians are their best source of technology and they are nearly 20 years behind as well. I should say the russians "were" nearly 20 years behind because now that russia and china are best buddies, china has shared some of our technology with them.

I don't see the United States attacking other countries because they develop nuclear power. Nuclear weapons maybe but not just power.

Then I suggest that you are short sighted and are substituting what you believe, or what you wish for what you don't actually see.

Technology is out there. You can't put the "Genie" back in the bottle. Everyday new and amazing things will be developed and if you're scared now you may need to reevaluate.

The technology has always been out there but china still remained 20 years behind despite their best efforts to keep up. Overnight that gap closed and one man is responsible for the ramifications. Apologizing for him will not change a thing, it will only tarnish your credibility.

All Americans Left or Right want their family & friends to be safe. That's just human nature. Fear mongering and pointing the "my side cares more about our children's safety than yours" finger is counter productive and I'd hope both sides could find the strength to restrain themselves from it.

Outline the logic by which you believe making it possible for china to accurately target any point on the globe with an ICBM makes us safer.

 

[top gun]

... Outline the logic by which you believe making it possible for china to accurately target any point on the globe with an ICBM makes us safer.

I don't want to go over the same turf time and again. I'm really not trying to be argumentative.

Hind sight is 20/20. Things have been done in various agreements by both Parties that have not always turned out completely to our advantage decades later. My only point is the sword cuts both ways (both Parties) and technology is not something that can be withheld forever. At some point like it or not technology will be so available that any country will be able to easily construct WMD's.

As far as being safer because China is increasing their ICBM capability... I never said that.


I said a country with their resources would be able get the technology with or without us. And as a side note I'd say this. As we invade and occupy sovereign countries under false pretense, hang their leaders and turn their country into a Civil War killing field... if I were a world leader of any other country right now I'd be doing anything and everything I could to get my hands on or to develop nuclear weapons as the ONLY possible deterrent (barring just strict obeyment) to a possible US invasion. The Bush administration is giving some moral high ground to the ones we both distrust... and that is certainly a shame.

Military might without diplomacy is like getting a great deal on an oriental carpet beater but not owning an oriental rug. In the long run it really does you no good.

 

[Truth-Bringer]

Kinda the pot calling the kettle black isn't it. I think your position is pretty set in stone itself don't ya think?

There are two major differences between your side and mine:

1. You are willing to initiate force against individuals engaged in peaceful, honest, voluntary activities, and

2. I am open to experimentation with new political philosophies. Your side is not. Your side uses force to prevent experimenting with new political ideas.

Like I said if you ever win a election in the United States please implement all the solutions.

And like I said, that's Appeal to the majority fallacy. It's also ultimately an Appeal to authority and an Appeal to tradition. Both fallacies, in case you were wondering.

Who's stopping you? Raise the money from all your adamant supporters and run baby run!

Who's stopping us? Well it's your side that's stopping us. You've limited the money we can raise and caused us to spend the largest percentage of that money just trying to get ballot access. All the details of your fraud are here:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=897

OK whatever. I don't even know what a collectivist is

Look in the mirror.

Pretty sure I'm not.

And you'd be wrong about that...

Come on was President Bill Clinton charged with a crime here. Not his administration President Bill Clinton? No...

Who is ultimately in charge of a President's administration? Gee, is it the President? Is he responsible for knowing what's going on - for hiring the people who work there - for overseeing the operations - for making sure no crimes are committed?

You're right... no he wasn't ever charged with any crime

You may not have noticed, but it's rather hard to charge the President with a crime - since they're basically the most powerful person in the country. It's pointless to try them through the normal criminal justice system, because there's no restriction against them pardoning themselves. The only way they can be convicted and removed is by a vote of the Senate after the House has voted for impeachment.

Extremely misguided conclusion...

You do indeed have some extremely misguided conclusions.

Progress by the numbers
Under President Clinton, the economy has

Again, what did the national debt do under Clinton? It went up...

The US ain't Switzerland my friend..

No, but neutrality would work, since we have a strong military to deter attacks. No nation state wants a war with us, since we have enough nukes to blow them off the face of the earth.