RopeaDope

Ok, you're right. It's a gun show thing. Just stop allowing gun shows to take place and problem solved.

Nobody is getting "around" a law. It is the fact that in most states, the private sale of a firearm doesn't require the background check. Private sales can take place at the gun show, just as they can at a Kmart parking lot, or in your garage, or wherever. "ALL" gun sales. Everything except private sales is already being enforced, and some states require background checks for private sales as well. We are almost there. I support background checks on private sales because studies show that criminals obtain approximately 40% of their guns through straw purchases. The claims that 95% of Americans support these tougher gun laws are based on polls that sample a very small portion of the population (like 1500 people) and are targeted toward traditionally liberal counties.

I've gone deeper into this particular discussion than I should have. I agree with what Blair said. That's all. I did spy with my little eye really big missiles on big trucks and semi trailers, and many chemical and biological warheads and artillery rounds. The Muthana chemical weapon depot was a pain in our ass, because hadj wanted really badly to get those sarin artillery rounds to use for their IEDs. Many a gun fight took place keeping them away from there. On the totem pole of the American war machine, with Bush perched on top, I was on the other end. The part with worms stuck to the bottom, mold growing on it, and just the right height for a dog to piss on. I wasn't "lied to". I was serving in the military and in early March 2003, I went where I was told, got off a plane in Kuwait, drove into Iraq, and did what I had to do to come back home.

I think you are flustered due to some misinformation. I see your views on gun control, and something needs to be done about violence and suicide, but you think these problems come from, "gun issues", that don't actually exist. ~There is no loophole to buy guns at gun shows. All federal and state laws apply, including any licensed dealer being required to do background checks. Fact ~If you purchase a firearm online, it gets shipped to the FFL of your choice, where you go pick it up, after completing all the paperwork and a background check just like if you bought it from the store. All state and federal laws still apply to that purchase. Fact ~If you purchase ammo online, you must show proof of age, usually by emailing or faxing a copy of your drivers license. You have to be 18 to buy shotgun shells and 21 to buy pistol and riffle ammo. All state and federal laws apply. If your state requires a card to purchase pistol ammo, you have to email them a copy of your card. Fact ~I don't understand what waiting period you are referring to, but the background check is an FBI record check. It doesn't get much more rigorous than that. Opinion ~The number of firearms any one person owns is irrelevant. You can effectively use one at a time. Have 50 would not make someone more dangerous than having one or two. Opinion, logic based ~Limiting the magazine capacity is pure opinion based argument. With a couple hours of practice, you can get a good reload drill down so having five 10 round magazines makes you more leather than someone else with two 30 round mags. Also, high capacity magazines are almost never used in crimes. Adam Lanza used 30 round magazines, but he was firing between 5-15 shots and then reloading anyways leaving half loaded magazines laying around. James Holmes used a 100 round drum (you can have those, they are not necessary at all) but luckily, those drums are very unreliable and his gun jammed do to a failure to feed from the drum which is what ended his shooting spree. Opinion ~Armor piercing bullets are already banned and you go to jail for possessing them. Hollow points sound scary, but they are made for a specific reason (self defense). If you knew the internal ballistics of hollow points and round nosed bullets, you would understand. A hollow point goes in, transfers all its energy to the target (knock down power). One shot will shot an attack by putting the attacker on his ass with a survivable wound. A round nosed bullet goes in and ricochets off bones and tumbles around causing horrendous wound tacks and then passes out the other side and hits he person behind you. Fact ~Concealed carry is not permitted in "bars" but the most recent high profile shooting sprees have been at a church, a college, and a political rally (Gabby Giffords) Fact ~The last one is the one the NRA will fight the hardest. That is registration, and a prelude to confiscation. Opinion, but I think most will agree that the NRA will absolutely oppose this one and on this basis -Allow me to add the disclaimer, I'm with you on recognizing a problem with violence, suicides, and accidents. I'm with you on things need to change. Some gun laws can be touched up on to help prevent straw purchases for instance, but the wide sweeping gun control hat people often rally for, in my opinion, is unfounded do to it is seeking to outlaw things that don't exist, or are already illegal, or restrict people for no reason whatsoever, without any benefit of quelling any of the problems we are fighting in the first place.

Here is actually one of the articles of chemical weapons. I didn't even know they were trying to keep some of this stuff secret. I have several pictures that maybe I shouldn't have. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middleeast/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html Typically, what we would see is, mustard gas, tabun, and sarin for chem, and anthrax or botulinum toxin for bio. Then, attached are some images of task force rocketeer dismantling missiles.

No Billvon, either I'm not speaking clearly, or you are have fun playing with my wording. I don't think Vietnam or Iraq was a "good idea". I'm saying that if you get stuck with a war, whether you agreed with it or not, you want to win. You want to win your battles so you and your men come back home to your families. After all the loss of life, you want some solace in knowing that it at least made a difference and was not all in vain. Chemical and biological weapons, YES, there were, for I saw with my little eyes a little place called the Muthana chemical weapons depot. We also, at a separate location, came across a weapons depot with something in it that was radio active. I don't know what it was, it was really hush hush and most of use were told to guard the perimeter. The NBC NCO who went in to take readings and get pictures suffered some of the effects of radiation exposure and later received a Bronze Star with V for it. I'm not trying to say it was something it wasn't. I was never privy to what it was. Maybe waste, maybe something for a "dirty bomb", I don't know what all is radio active. There were not WMDs. There was a lot of shady shit though. I'd be more than happy to email you some pictures of large SCUD missiles, chemical warheads, chemical artillery rounds, and pictures of the biological storage depot.

Honestly kallend, I don't know. I've tried so many times to make sense of it all. The President along with his large civilian staff and four military Generals decide invading Iraq will be a smart thing to do. As the delegation of command gets sliced off into smaller pieces, and then the commanders of those pieces slice them up and so on, the guy with the big picture of the battle is pretty far removed, often not even in the same country. At my level, all I knew was today we have to make it to this town. Little bit of fighting, little bit of waiting around, then get ready, we have a part in a big battle in the next town. Get there and the town is a ghost town. They say well why don't you go to this town, and we run into an ambush and end up in a 4 day battle with the Republican Guard. After enough of that, we were driving around in down town B-dad. It starts to look like we've got the war in the bag and think we are going home, but end up being there 15 months. An insurgency pops up. IEDs become the new hip thing. April 2004, the Sadr's Jashe al-Maudi militia springs up and we see worse fighting than we did during the invasion. The subsequent deployments, new militias, new terror groups, JAM, JAI, AQI, SOI and so on. We did the troop surge with a victory by attrition strategy, and when we had them pretty well beat down, Gen Petraeus flipped the strategy and it worked. On my last deployment, I felt that I could have left my JCOP with nothing more than a pistol and one magazine, and went a few hundred meters down the road to the local market with no trouble whatsoever.

Objective to topple Saddam's regime was a success. Standing up a new government was a success until we abandoned them just like we did in Vietnam. We trained and equipped their Army, Air Force, and Police forces. There wasn't WMDs, but there were a hell of a lot of long range SCUDs with chemical and biological warheads that a group called Task Force Rocketeer went through and dismantled. There were chemical and biological weapons in massive storage depots, as well as factories for new ones. Inlue of WMDs, we found plenty of other weapons capable of a good amount of destruction, we found torture chambers in the personal houses palaces of Saddam's sons a log with home movies of them having their fun. Replacing it with ISIS is not an accurate statement. AQI was defeated. AQI were effectively crushed and ran out of the country. By leaving too early, as I said before, we left Iraq vulnerable while our President ignored the fact that AQI leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, declared a world wide caliphate which became known as ISIS. If you have the stomach for it, watch some of their execution videos and see how brutal they are. I see some of their stuff on the news in Mosoul, Talafar, Baji, northern Baghdad and I recognize the places as I have been there, work with the local population their, fought AQI there, and lost friends there. I'm done with the military, and done with war, but if I had the chance, I'd volunteer to go fight ISIS. If there really is a heaven and hell and all that, there must be renovations going on right now because those guys deserve a whole new level of hell. I would dip all my bullets in pigs blood and make sure they know they aren't going to see any virgins when they die.

Saddam's Ba'athist regime was Suni, although Sunis are the minority in Iraq. When their newly established government went into effect, the Sunis were less than thrilled to see the majority of power which they had enjoyed for the past 40 years be transferred to the majority population of Shiites. After the invasion, American and British forces governed the provinces in their areas of responsibility. By about the end of 2008, all provincial control had been transitioned to Iraqs government. The situation was still fragile, which is why I would have liked to have seen it through a little more before we gave up on it. Billvon - 4000 dead American soldiers, 100,000+ dead Iraqis, complete failure in completing the objectives of the war, no WMD's to control and creating ISIS seems like the very definition of "the wrong thing to do." We completed several objectives successfully. The WMD intel was false, but if you had seen the effects of Saddam and his sons....I guess you just had to be there. Those 4000 dead Americans, I knew several of them. Some died in their beds during mortar attacks, some stepped on IEDs, and some sacrificed themselves to save the lives of their brothers. Governments fight over politics, oil, or whatever. The soldiers get hauled over their and simply fight for each other. With the loss of life having happened, I wish we could have stayed and finished the job. Being pulled out prematurely and seeing all the progress go to shit and even become worse than when we started means those 4000 men and women basically died for nothing. They died fighting for their country, doing their duty, saving heir friends, making life better for Iraqis, but in the end, there was no gain at all. Going back to Tony Blair's remarks, I agree that ousting Saddam was the right thing to do. Beyond that, we made significant strides in progress. Iraq made progress. Then we screwed up. We created the conditions for ISIS to evolve and then allowed it to grow into the monster that it is today.

From what I would try to claim as an objective point of view, all though I am a gun owner, the small Velo and 25 jump videographer are immediately recognized as the problem when they are involved in a skydiving accident. It is frustrating that our safety record takes a ding because someone thought they hath skillz of madness, but when blame their judgement and use them as examples to warn and educate other. We don't immediately start discussing whether we should ban X-braced canopies, or sub 100 canopies, or ban all cameras in skydiving. When it comes to gun incidents, that's exactly what happens though. I think people would have less opposition to guns, if they had a better understanding of existing gun laws, a better understanding of the way guns work mechanically, and a better understanding of the issues that lead someone to pick up a gun and shoot themselves or someone else. Unfortunately, people who don't like guns don't want to learn more about them, they just want them gone. If it isn't something you need or want, then who cares? Get rid of it and maybe it will help, maybe not.

You're right. There are instances of crime, negligence, suicides, and accidents with guns. I personally don't see it as a "gun problem", but rather a "crime, negligence, suicide, and safety problem". That is all I'm saying. I watch these arguments go back and forth and it seems like guns are attacked and defended by way of mute points. No one ever really talks about the underlying problem.

In the military, negligent discharges carry a pretty severe punishment, so before the proverbial crucifixion, there is a forensic investigation done on the weapon in question to determine if there was any type of defect that could have caused the gun to malfunction. Their is also an investigation of the individual and witness statements and everything. I've heard some amazing excuses of how these guns have magically "went off", but typically, (this most often happens at the clearing barrels) it is attributed to improper clearing procedures or putting a finger on the trigger thinking it is on "safe" when it rubbed against your kit and was switched to "fire".

Wendy, I agree, and your post was well stated. I'm just not in favor of the life long career politicians. I believe them to be out of touch, beyond the law, and their actions are questionable at best, being motivated by corruption and political favors. Personally, I was hoping to see Fiorina do a lot better, but that doesn't really seem to be an option know. This year we are merely trying to whittle each party down it the lessor of its evils, and then hoping the victor doesn't put us in too big of a jam in the next four years.

Paraphrased from someone else's report on the issue; What will cause a dropped gun to fire? 1. A mechanical defect that allows the hammer to drop. 2. Inertia causing the firing pin to move forward, coming into contact with the primer hard enough to fire. What is done to prevent this from happening in modern firearms? 1. Regular inspections and proper maintenance will help insure that your weapon is functioning properly. 2. Most, if not all of the current manufacturers have implemented some sort of measure to reduce, if not eliminate, the chances of a discharge due to the weapon being dropped. Some states, California being the most notable, have implemented a “drop test” that the pistol must pass before that particular model can be sold in that state. a. Most manufacturers have implemented some sort of a firing pin block safety. This is a safety that actually blocks the firing pin, preventing it from moving forward until the pistol is either held correctly (like the Schwartz style safety used by Kimber) or the trigger is actually pulled (most of the others like the Colt Series 80 or Glock’s Safe Action). b. Others have modified existing parts without changing the basic design (Like Springfield using a light weight firing pin with a heavy firing pin spring). c. Still others have done nothing, relying on the original design to function as it was meant to. In most cases, it requires a very specific set of circumstances to allow the weapon to fire because of being dropped (such as being dropped on the muzzle in almost a perfect 90 degree vertical drop from a high enough point to be able to overcome the strength of the firing pin spring) in order for the firing pin to be moved forward with enough force to cause the pistol to fire. This is, as already mentioned, virtually a one in a million chance. Much more common is that somebody accidently pulls the trigger, or the intentionally pull the trigger thinking that the weapon is empty. The term is use for a long time was "accidental discharge". This was eventually changed to he more appropriately termed "negligent discharge" Gun don't "just go off". As stated above, usually he gun is "fired" through some type of negligent action, and then the CYA excuse is, "I don't know what happened, it just [went off]".

?? I don't get it.

I don't know that this is even debated. As a veteran myself, I would say that Tony Blair is spot on. Although the invasion hinged on the false pretense of WMD, oust the Saddam regime was absolutely the right thing to do. I was in the invasion, and then spent the following 14 months in Baghdad. In May 2003, it was pretty much over. There were people we were looking for, but the streets were fairly quiet. We focused on re-opening schools, hospitals, banks, police and fire stations, power stations, ect. By late June, the insurgency had started up. Al Qaeda started an Iraq faction known as AQI to fight the coalition in Iraq. By 2010, AQI had been decimated and Iraq was mostly as safe as any major U.S. city. The Iraqi government was in complete control. My personal opinion, and wide spread criticism of the Obama Administration, is that in order to capitalize on the political move of "ending OIF" he withdrew U.S. forces too soon creating a power vacuum. This allowed AQI to reorganize and regroup in Syria, and then they initiated the "Caliphate" and became known as ISIS. With successful and unimpeeded conquests in Syria, they spread into Iraq, taking advantage of a government that was still sorting itself out. - To further exacerbate the problem, I believe that by simply refusing to admit to making a mistake, the Administration let the situation perpetuate into something that we alone are not going to be able to quell. To quote Alexander the Great, "I do not fear an army of lions led by a lamb. I fear the army of sheep that is led by a lion." That being said, I would compare the American and Russian military both to armies of lions, but as for their leaders, one is clearly a lion, while the other very much resembles a lamb. Does anyone know how to say, "I have no beef with you" in Russian?

Nope. DNA testing has proved that he fathered children by Sally Hemings. Even the Thomas Jefferson Foundation concluded in 2012 "evidence strongly supports the conclusion that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children." The DNA testing is circumstantial because Jefferson had 5 sons who were well known for fraternizing with the family slaves. DNA from his blood line could have come from one or some of them just as easily as it could have come from him. - As well, there is the possible scenario, that he fathered children with Sally Hemings during a long term committed relationship with her after the death of his wife, which is quite different than "sneaking around slinging the D at all of his female slaves behind his wife's back" as some would assert.

You're right. It's the Judiciary Committee for the HOUSE. It held IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS and voted to convict on two out of three counts. That is, in fact, how this works. Nixon was subject to an IMPEACHMENT trial in the HOUSE. He was IMPEACHED. The only thing stopping him from being forcibly removed from office was he resigned before the formality of the Senate doing the same. Everything else is simply a whitewash of the facts. It's like saying a murderer who has been indicted is somehow absolved of his sins simply because he commits suicide the night before sentencing. Don't get me wrong Sir, Nixon was as wrong as wrong as the "2 girls 1 cup" video, but he was not impeached. "Nixon was subject to an IMPEACHMENT trial in the HOUSE." "he resigned before the formality of the Senate doing the same." To be impeached the proceedings must pass boy the house and senate. He was subject to, yes. He was undoubtedly guilty, yes. HOWEVER, he resigned BEFORE being impeached and was subsequently pardoned by Gerald Ford. It would be more comparable to a murderer being indicted, but during the trial, before reaching a guilty verdict, the DA decides to drop the charges. Doesn't change what he did, but it means he was not convicted of murder.

***Nixon was impeached in the House, fact, and did not have the votes to prevent removal from office, fact. He resigned before being forcibly removed from office by a near certain vote in the Senate. I'll give you that. However, he was absolutely impeached in the House AND found guilty. http://watergate.info/impeachment/articles-of-impeachment http://watergate.info/impeachment/analysis-judiciary-committee-impeachment-votes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmYedO4nogk Anyone who believes otherwise is a victim of brainwashing and revisionist history. Here is the last part of your article (the part you left out) Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office. (Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.) Consequences: On August 5, 1974, the long sought after audio tapes provided the "smoking gun" which revealed President Nixon had been deeply involved in the coverup and had ordered Haldeman to halt the FBI investigation just six days after the Watergate break-in."...call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don't go any further into this case, period..." -- Nixon to Haldeman, June 23, 1972.) That revelation resulted in a complete collapse of support for Nixon in Congress. On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate. He thus became the only U.S. President ever to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford succeeded him and a month later granted Nixon a full pardon for any crimes he might have committed while President. Richard Nixon had served a total of 2,026 days as the 37th President of the United States. He left office with 2 1/2 years of his second term remaining. A total of 25 officials from his administration, including four cabinet members, were eventually convicted and imprisoned for various crimes. Your links show the "impeachment charges." The impeachment never happened. This is taught in 3rd or 4th grade history classes.

This is rubbish. The gun control act of 1968 made drop-safety testing mandatory for all gun manufacturers. I can take a loaded handgun and skip it across a parking lot and it wouldn't fire. In addition to the hammer or striker being knocked loose, the trigger has to be depressed to allow the hammer or striker to contact the firing pin.

Yes, the Bush family is another long standing political dynasty, BUT, the extended Bush family with two separate administrations has nary the scandal of Bill and Hillary. I'm not endorsing Jeb, as kawisixer01 puts it, 319 million people and these two families are the best we can do? I would however point out the badassedness of George H. W. Enraged by the attack on Purl Harbor, he enlisted in the Navy and became their youngest aviator ever. He flew 58 combat sorties in the Pacific Theater, where he successfully completed one bombing run with his engine on fire from Japanese AA guns. He then bailed out into the ocean and was rescued by a submarine. He then went to Yale, enrolling in an accelerated program so he could get his degree in 2.5 years. During those 2.5 years, he was captain of the Yale baseball team, where he played first base in the first two College World Series, President of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity, a member of the Skull and Bones, and graduated as a Phi Betta Kappa. He then entered the oil business as a sales clerk, but with 5 years, co-founded his own petroleum corporation and became a millionaire. In is political career, he was a congressman, senator, ambassador to the UN, director of the CIA, Vice President, and President. - not a bad resume. Amazon- Bills philandering doesn't concern me, the perjury, obstruction of federal investigations, fraud, manipulation, deceit, and gross negligence is what concerns me. Kallend- The Jefferson issue is speculation. A person made accusations after Jefferson denied him a position as the Post Master General. Some scholars believe it never happened and some believe he had a long term relationship with one of them after his wife died.

No. He wasn't. He was the third. That said, he was also not found guilty, so who cares? Andrew Johnson was also not found guilty. The only President to be impeached AND found guilty was Nixon. Considering your first point is so wildly inaccurate, I'm not going to address the other 24 points. I assume you've taken exactly as much care and researched them just as well. Only two presidents have been impeached in United States history, and neither was convicted of the charges filed against him. No president has been convicted of the charges filed against him during impeachment proceedings. President Andrew Johnson, the 17th president of the United States, was accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act. The 1867 required Senate approval before a president could remove any member of his cabinet who had been confirmed by the upper chamber of Congress. The House impeached Johnson on February 24, 1868, three days after he dumped his secretary of war, a radical Republican named Edwin M. Stanton, allegedly in violation of the Tenure of Office Act. The U.S. Senate acquitted Johnson later that year by a narrow margin. Johnson was spared conviction and ouster from office by a single vote. President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives. Clinton, the nation's 42nd president, was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 19, 1998, for allegedly misleading a grand jury about his extramarital affair with Lewinsky in the White House, and then persuading others to lie about it, too. The charges against Clinton were perjury and obstruction of justice. After a trial, the Senate acquitted Clinton of both charges on February 12. He went on to apologize for the affair and complete his second term in office, telling a captivated and polarized American public: "Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible." Richard M. Nixon, was certain to be impeached and convicted in 1974 but the 37th president of the United States resigned before he was to face prosecution over the 1972 break-in at the Democratic Party's headquarters in what became known as the Watergate scandal. Impeachment is a very somber process in American politics, one that has been used sparingly and with the knowledge that lawmakers enter it with an extraordinary burden of proof. The result, the removal of an American president chosen by the citizenry, is unprecedented. Only the most serious of offenses should ever be pursued under mechanisms for impeaching a president, and they are spelled out in the Constitution of the United States: "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Maybe you should just not bother fact checking anyone, since you clearly don't know very much about American history. Anyways, my point was that, IMO, the 35+ year political dynasty of the Clinton household is just too tainted to continue using the American people for personal and financial gain. It's time for someone less stagnant to get into office. - And now, I digress.

Not that any other candidates are impressing me very much, but how much longer does this family need to hold the highest power positions in our country? http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clintcrimefamily.html 1. Monica Lewinsky: Bill was second president impeached in U.S. history 2. Benghazi: 4 Americans KIA, due to negligence. Weak diplomatic security practices. Initially lied to American people about the situation 3. Asia fundraising scandal: More than 50 convicted in a scandal that made Lincoln bedroom, White House coffees, Buddhist monks infamous. 4. Hillary’s private emails: Leakage of classified information, not maintaining archives that could be used in future criminal hearings 5. Whitewater: A large S&L failed and several people went to prison. 6. Travelgate: The firing of the career travel office was the very first crony capitalism scandal of the Clinton era. 7. Humagate: An aide’s sweetheart job arrangement. If some of the rumors are true, it certainly explains a lot about these two couples 8. Pardongate: The first time donations were ever connected as possible motives for presidential pardons. 9. Foundation favors: Revealing evidence that the Clinton Foundation was a pay-to-play back door to the State Department, and an open checkbook for foreigners to curry favor. 10. Mysterious files: The disappearance and re-discovery of Hillary’s Rose Law Firm records. She didn't know they existed (FBI found her finger prints all over them) 11. Filegate: The Clinton illegal use of FBI files to dig for dirt on their enemies. 12. Hubble trouble: The resignation and imprisonment of Hillary law partner Web Hubbell. 13. The Waco tragedy: One of the most lethal exercises of police power in American history. Followed by controversy and cover-ups. Janet Reno was able to blackmail Clinto into reappointing her and promoting the person in charge of Waco incident. 14. The Clinton’s Swedish slush fund: $26 million collected overseas with little accountability and lots of questions about whether contributors got a pass on Iran sanctions. 15. Troopergate: From the good old days, did Arkansas state troopers facilitate Bill Clinton’s philandering? (One of Bill's sexual assault victims) 16. Gennifer Flowers: The tale that catapulted a supermarket tabloid into the big time. One of Bill's long time mistresses. 17. Bill’s Golden Tongue: His and her speech fees shocked the American public. Over $89 million made by Bill alone. 18. Boeing Bucks: Boeing contributed big-time to Bill; Hillary helped the company obtain a profitable Russian contract. 19. Larry Lawrence: How did a fat cat donor get buried in Arlington National Cemetery without war experience? 20. The cattle futures: Hillary as commodity trader extraordinaire. 21. Chinagate: Nuclear secrets go to China on her husband’s watch. 22. Vince Foster Jr. Mystery - Questions cloud the suicide of Vince Foster, former colleague, friend, and White House aid of Hillary’s who had connections to Travelgate, and the Whitewater scandals. 23. Lootergate - Bill and especially Hillary started to ship White House furniture to their personal home in Chappaqua, N.Y.. The Clintons claimed they were donated them, and not the White House. After contacting the donors, the Clintons have since returned most of the items taken from the WH. 24. Drug Dealer Donor Scandal - Convicted drug trafficker Jorge Cabrera apparently made such a big donation to the Clinton’s campaign that he was invited to the White house without Secret Service present. 25. Ponzi Scheme and Political Favor Scandal - Norman Yung Yuen Hsu was a convicted pyramid investment promoter, and major Democratic donor. He contributed an undisclosed amount to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign.

LBJ got us into the war because he needed to distract America from finding out that he set up the assassination of JFK so that he could gain office. Also, having expounded upon political successes gained from his completely erroneous Silver Star, he needed a war to send future democratic politicians to so he could set them up with career boosting medals (John Kerry's numerous Purple Hearts for example)