Bill Clinton
This fawning article about Billy Clinton made me ill.
Red herrings put forward - implication that the Bush administration works in isolation in foreign affairs, the supposed correlation between short-lived budget surpluses in the late 90s and the current president’s tax cuts, and that the world “...follows the wrong-headed idea that our differences are more important than our commonality.” Of course, he offers no proof for any of these statements.
The writer - “He (Mr. Clinton) never mentioned (Sen.) Clinton’s health care plan.....” Well, he only mentioned two of its features - “... preventive care as one area to ease the burden of health care expenses” and “...employing an all-electric system to reduce administrative costs....”
The writer - “The president [but he’s not any more, thank heaven!] took a few pre-screened questions....” Gee, we’ve never seen that technique from this guy before, have we?
The story concludes with Donna Acquilano emoting all over the place about what a wonder Bill is. Some people never learn.
This letter has not been edited.
And they accuse liberals of being Bush haters...
Posted by on September 26, 2007 02:19 PMMedwyn is off his meds again
Posted by on September 26, 2007 02:30 PMObviously another Republican America hater. Isnt that what the Republicans tell us, to say bad things about the President shows how much you hate America, right? So obviously all of the Republican voters and governmemnt officials who attacked Clinton and disrespected him are in reallity traitors who hate America. Bring on your hate Medwyn, America and Clinton will survive in spite of you.
Posted by American lover on September 26, 2007 03:04 PMWhat part of the peace and prosperity during the Clinton years got you so upset, Medwyn?
Posted by Romulus on September 26, 2007 03:06 PMPre screened Questions for Clinton?
He may have had a few but I've never seen more pre screened questions, town meetings, and surrounding of supporters from any other Pres. in history than Bush. You can't be involved in a town meeting with Bush unless you sign a loyalty oath and agree with him. Pre screened indeed. you are as posted before a traitor and America hater and or a terrorist supporter if you disagree with a president past or future right?
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 26, 2007 04:19 PMRomulus - The tax increases under Clinton in the early 90's never helped me obtain prosperity.
I had to obtain prosperity in spite of Clinton's policies.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 04:25 PMLook at unemploument numbers under Clinton's policies, then compare to Bush's.
How about Tax revenue under Clinton's policies, then complare to Bush's.
How about people that were set to testify against the Clintons or knew of their purported corruption, what happened to a lot of them?
Now look at those who would be able to testify against Bush (if he has done anything worng anyway) - they are all still breathing.
Clintons list includes:
1. James McDougal (whitewater partner found dead of apparent heart attack in solitary confinement cell)
2. Mary Mahoney (sexual harrasment in the white house)
3. Vince Foster (apparent suicide gunshot at funny angle in head)
4. Ed Wiley (found dead in Virginia woods of apparent gunshot to head)
5. Jerry Parks (former head of Clintons gubernatorial campaign was gunned down at a deserted intersection - was ready to reveal information and files turned up missing from his home)
6. Ron Brown (this could be legitimate - although pathologists claim he had a hole in head similar to gunshot - it was a plane crash so...)
7. John Parnell Walker (whitewater investigator for RTC- jumped to his death from a balcony in Virginia)
Shall we continue - this is a very long list
Bush's list so far:
0
Romulus it's not so much the "peace & prosperity" while Clinton was in office that bothers me, it's the SCREWING YOUR INTERN when you should be making important decisions that bother the hell out of me..............
Posted by Heather on September 26, 2007 05:02 PMI agree with Heather, to a point.
Not that the pres should be banned from having sex, but the most powerful figure of such importance to our country, especially the defense of our country, should not be placing themselves in compromising positions. Such positions could easily invite blackmail that could corrupt his ability to be objective in making major decisions affecting our country.
From that perspective his actions were totally irresponsible.
Posted by KW on September 26, 2007 06:11 PM"Heather, are you saying having sex should be banned to all presidents because they can't have proper judgement afterwards? Get a life."
No I"m not you dummy, I'm saying he shouldn't be doing it in the OVAL OFFICE!
Beyond that the President can have all the sex he wants........
Now as far as me "getting a life" I have one, a full one at that!
Posted by Heather on September 26, 2007 06:18 PMThe sex police and nazi party (also known as the Rush Limbaugh fan club) are alive and well, although on drugs,evidently in Highlands Ranch.
Posted by dmz on September 26, 2007 06:40 PMW. "read "90 something books last year? He must have a lot of spare time with the Iraq fiasco.
How much vacation does he get?
NEVER forget "My Pet Goat"!
Posted by rick on September 26, 2007 06:42 PMI have only one queston for Bill Clintion.
Did Jennifer, Moinca, or any of the other Clinton Bimbos swallow?
Posted by on September 26, 2007 06:42 PMHeather:
Resorting to name calling is, in it's self, an indication that I hit a nerve somewhere along the way. Do you honestly think that Bill Clinton is the only President ever to have sex in the Oval Office?Clinton did that after hours or don't you remember? Even so, he is far from the only one who did that. Try Eisenhower, Kennedy, Roosevelt among others, but that was in the era when a presidents personal life was off limits, as it should be, and the gossip hunger was not as strong as it is now nor were politics as dirty as they are now or the politicians so rabid, both Democrats and Republicans, about anything that could be construed as a political advantage, regardless of the harm it might do.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 26, 2007 07:10 PMKW:
Have you any idea how fast the secret service would snap up anyone who tried to blackmail the president. All he would have to do is tell them he was being threaten by whoever and they more than likely would never be seen or heard from again, in public that is.
Dmz, besides calling republicans nazis, have you said anything intelligent lately, more like, ever?
Or your unusually low IQ prevents you from doing so?
Allen, politicians personal lives becomes public, the minute they run for office, and that is the way it should be. Because we employ them, paying for their time in office, and supposedly they represent the people, so we should know what they are made of. In the private sector it’s a criminal background check, and occasional drug testing. This should be applied to politicians too.
Well, whatever, Clinton was impeached, they let him serve out his term because nobody wanted that retarded Al Gore as president, and people only remembers Clinton as the classless backwoods redneck from Arkansas who stained the Blue dress. He’s never gonna shake that off, no matter how loud leftists scream. The guy who had Astroturf in the back of a pickup, groping a widow in the WH, while Serbs exterminated tens of thousands, and terrorists where running amok both here and globally. What a president.
Posted by Uno on September 26, 2007 08:28 PMUno,
Is all that supposed to be applicable to such as Senator Craig, Congressman Foley, the man from Louisiana - Vitter, if memory serves - and, perhaps, a few others of Republican status as well?
Or are you just making more noise about what was "wrong" with Clinton, while taking for granted that those of the G.O..P. may be allowed to get away with anything they can?
Ah! Well! Never mind! Those of us who have studied history could point out a number of Republican Presidential foibles and follies, from U.S. Grant on through Herbert Hoover; and then re-occuring from Nixon through today. In Nixon's case it was being named as an unindicted CRIMINAL co-conspirator. But, of course, that's not nearly as important as a little bit of what the Brits call "slap and tickle" in the Oval Office, at least so far as Republicans be concerned. Jailed Attorneys General of the United States are just another commonplace for them. So why get upset about criminal Presidents?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 26, 2007 08:32 PMOG, this post is about Bill Clinton.
Posted by Uno on September 26, 2007 08:49 PMOld Grouch, who are you kidding? Clinton was accused with rape by several woman. Not by the GOP, but individuals who had nothing to gain from those claims, but they where dragged thought the mud by the media and the Clintons. What happened to you famous woman’s rights movement on the left? Or it only exists when it suits your political gains? If it was Bush accused with something like that, I bet we would never hear the end of it until he was in jail, are you really that biased?
Posted by Uno on September 26, 2007 09:05 PMUno,
The loss of the journalistic "mulligan" given to politicians was destroyed by Ted Kennedy and his behavior after Chappaquiddick. The different media outlets gave him only the same lack of prying offered to all public figures save entertainers. When the amount of lies and just plain arrogance made the press look like a bunch of fools the rules changed. From then on there was no limit on who or what was "proper"although they tended to concentrate on Democrats at first.
I believe that many of the people who "hate" Clinton are those who were so frustrated at his arrogance. We are also upset with the current President's arrogance although I would approve of it if he were a conservative actually following the things conservatives have always supported. Oh Well. Clinton is in the past. If we are lucky and she will stay there.
Posted by momma y on September 26, 2007 09:51 PMMomma y, “Clinton is in the past.” unfortunately is not true, he is on the news almost weekly, just won’t go away. So, we just keep bashing him and bring up his dirty laundry until he does. After all nobody forced him or his wife to remain in the public. I bet he wants to be the first husband of a president. Something tells me that ain’t gonna happen.
Posted by Uno on September 26, 2007 10:09 PMwhy has the media not reported that since Chappaquiddick sexual abuse against women has risen over 1500%
Posted by on September 27, 2007 01:50 AMUno,
I did say they would stay there IF we were lucky. She is such a train wreck I am actually afraid of her getting the nomination and causing a real dweeb Republican to be elected. We don't need another neo-conservative.. we need a conservative. My rule is if both are idiots vote for their idiot so you don't have half the party defending him unless one of them is a dangerous idiot. Bush got lucky in both of his opponents not being able to communicate to the average voter.
Posted by momma y on September 27, 2007 02:22 AMSo momma y, arrogance is acceptable for real conservatives if they follow the party line but in anyone else it is unacceptable. Who do you think you are to foist such a double standard on the public. You show in your words the absolute arrogance you would deny all those but your ultra right wing zealot friends.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 27, 2007 04:55 AMGeorge Bush is a Fool.
Bill Clinton is a scumbag.
Which is worse? Pick the one you can stomach and defend him.
medwyn,What are you babbleing about?
Posted by Keith on September 27, 2007 09:02 AMUno:
-----this post is about Bill Clinton. Oh my ,did OG stray from the point and upset your little red wagon? What is it with you? Are you the decider of what is allowed? If someone says things that put a legitimate question to your zealous ultra right wing diatribes, is it judged by you to be a foul of some kind? You like to kick people in the ribs, now that you've been kick you resort to juvenile tactics in an attempt to gain sympathy. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen and quit your crying.
Uno,
You, yourself, made a statement about, "all politicians", and what should be done - such as crinimal background and drug testing - when they, and their lives, become public. It showed up in the posting that came just before your second one, of 08:28 PM.
I quite rightfully asked whether or not that would apply, in reality, to "ALL politicians", Republicans included..
In reply, you adopt the typical Republican/"conservative" position of it's being perfectly all right to bash Clinton; but don't expect to be able to deal with Republican faults and failings in response; since Clinton bashing - and by extension, Democrat and liberal bashing - is always entitled to be posted without question or reply.
'Taint necessarily so, Uno.
As to the accusations of rape: Did any one of them ever go to trial? Or were these of the same nature as those directed at the University LaCrosse Team back East, nothing more than a political circus for the benefit of the kind of individual who repeats claims against a person - so long as they are claims of bad conduct - without ever bothering to consider whether or not the claims are founded in fact?
I see that you have chosen to join the claque surrounding "AnAmerican" and that ilk - those who use vitruperative insults, along with potty-mouth additions - as their only response to positions, ideas, and presentations other than their own ignorant and nasty minded rants and juvenile posturings. That's your right of choice, of course; but you should realize that there are consequences to making such a choice; one of them being total loss of credibility for any genuine ideas, and constructive observations, you might have to offer in future.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 01:36 PMAllen also assumes the secret service would know who was doing the blackmailing. It wouldn't necessarily have to be the woman.
A third party in another country could do some serious damage with a tape/photo etc... Especially if the adulterer was needing to hide his/her deeds from the spouse, let alone the voting public.
I'll stand by my original post. Clinton's actions were extremely irresponsible and jeopardized the security of this nation.
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 01:39 PMOG - I notice you like to post the names of congressmen who have had sexual or criminal misdeeds cost them their office when complaining about Republicans.
Surely you're aware of the equally numerous list of dems that have committed acts even more heinous than the reps, so why is it you only list the reps?
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 01:46 PMKW,
The Secret Service would be the first in line to make the necessary investigation to find out who was threatening, or blackmailing, a President. And, the Secret Service would, of course, be the first to know, as the result of the investigation made.
WOW! We're really off to the wild blue yonder with hyperbole, aren't we? Irresponsible? Yes. About the same level of irresponsibility as those of a couple of Republicans before him whose daliances didn't happen to evoke quite as much fuss and furor in their time. Jeopardizing the security of this nation? That's a real stretch. Were they that far out, even the Senate couldn't have overlooked them at the impeachment trial.
As with Uno, this may be "bash Clinton" postings only; but at least try to stay somewhere in at least hailing distance of reality in the process. The credibility level of the whole thing was minimal to begin with. Now, it's getting to the point of somewhere around the "square root of minus zero".
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 01:53 PMKW,
As to your second posting here, I can always count on you, and those with you, to start off with them, right after you begin on Clinton. Just as I can always count on you, and those with you, to completely ignore the Republicans - if not go so far as to even deny their existence - when you are off on an anti-Democrat/liberal rant. Provides a bit of balance, old boy.
And then, of course, they're haven't been all that many Democrats - other than Clinton - to make a grand splash in the news for lapses in "moral" perfection lately. Have there?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 02:04 PMOG - If your definition of "lately" means less than 6 months, you're spot on.
But if you want to look at the last 5-10 yrs, dems are winning that race by at least 5-6 lengths.
Besides, if a republican actually committed sexual assault on a minor page, as opposed to just "texting" one like Foley, and was sent prison, and then was stupid enough to commit bank fraud when he got out, sentenced again, and then had his sentence commutted by Bush, how many years would you let pass before deeming it old news and quit bringing it up.
I find it totally unbelievable that so many are so upset about Libby getting his sentenced commutted for lying, yet Mel Reynolds (D) should be doing 20-30 yrs for actual sex crimes against a juvenal, but only receives a ridiculously short sentence, serves his minimal time, the violates federal law against a bank, finally gets a realistic sentence but then is rescued by Clinton's cummute, yet this doesn't ever bring a mention from folks like you. You who wailed like an infant at the outrage of Bush commuting the sentence of Libby for of all things, lying. And you do this all under the guise of caring about... What's that word again... oh yeah, justice.
Absolutely unbelievable.
Posted by KW on September 27, 2007 03:49 PM
Old Crotch is a hypocrite. He yaps about belligerent on the right and how Un American and Keith are typical, asks for others to speak up but ridicules them before hand.
Old Crotch
Asks for representatives from the conservative or Republicans to speak up, but then nails them with insults and putdowns before signing off.
“…managed to convince people that there actually is something to "conservative" and Republican "positions" other than merely often repeated meaningless, senseless, and pointless personal remarks, accompanied by insults and ridiculous aspersions.”
SHAMELESS HYPOCRITE
Allen, I don’t attempt to gain anything from jerks like you. “and quit your crying.” – wow, that was something. Do you have any more? Or, better yet did you have anything to say even remotely associated with this post? Another juvenile liberal leftie.
Posted by Uno on September 27, 2007 06:57 PMKW, one would be rep William Jefferson hiding $90,000 cash in his freezer, ok bit older that 6 months, but still under investigation.
But if you want something fresh, here it is from this month, 11 democrats including the mayor;
Assemblymen Alfred Steele and Mims Hackett, Passaic Mayor Sammy Rivera, Passaic City Councilman Marcellus Jackson, former Passaic City Councilman Jonathan Soto, Keith Reid, the Chief of Staff to the Newark City Council President, Louis Mister of Pleasantville, and five current and former members of the Pleasantville Board of Education -- Jayson Adams, City Councilman Maurice "Pete" Callaway, James McCormick, James Pressley and Rafael Velez.
KW, acts even more heinous! You grade heinous acts?
How does that work?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 27, 2007 07:22 PMOG, first, “So why get upset about criminal Presidents?” – are you implying that you don’t?
And why do you compare woman accusing Clinton with rape to the LaCrosse team? Was Clinton even investigated for that? I don’t think so. Those kids where fully investigated. So, what makes you think that it didn’t happened when he has a pattern of behavior pointing to that. You are the one with credibility problem here who thinks that 5 woman coming forward with these stories should be dismissed, just because you said so. I didn’t make these accusations, they did, I merely pointed them out.
As far as the potty mouth comment; I don’t see any difference between calling people stupid (short and straight to the point), and your long assays of down talking people with strong suggestions of the same. Some of us have jobs to go to, and don’t have time to sit around all day long to think up the barrage of verbal assaults you and your buddies here have time for, and demand no retaliation in return.
Bill Clinton is a liar. That was proven on National TV. He looked into the camera and lied to the American public and to his wife and daughter.
Once a liar, always a liar.
Posted by c on September 27, 2007 08:30 PMUno,
I was merely admitting that I would not object to someone who was a real conservative showing arrogance by ignoring the media's attitude and going forward without checking the polls first. I never claimed I was right to think so but included it so that you would know where I stand. It is right for any politician to go forward on principle and ignore critics. Those who actually do it are labeled arrogant, most especially by those who fear to take a position or admit a principle. They are lumped together with those who have made up their mind without benefit of fact nor willingness to listen. Imagine a two year old dragging a wagon and beating heads with a closed door. Those who consult a poll before choosing toilet paper and change their positions and statements to match those polls are labeled arrogant because of their belief that we are too stupid or too weak to notice. If we call them on it they verbally pat us on the head like stupid children and continue shifting to match the latest poll. Imagine a petulant teen-ager with a stiff mouth locked in a mocking frown glaring at you with the cocked head and folded arms. Both parties have both kinds. Again, I was stating my prejudice, not encouraging it. We would benefit if all presidents treated all of the media and their spin as something to be ignored.
Posted by momma y on September 28, 2007 04:35 AMKW,
What I find somewhat "unbelievable" is the fixation on something that happened some 8, or so, years ago. You blather away about how outrageous the event was, and about not hearing anyone protest, etc., etc., as if the events were current to this forum - which itself didn't even exist at the time. You have no knowledge concerning what anyone actually did back then, of course; but you sound off as if that really mattered as to what they do today.
If that is supposed to indicate your "superiority" of position, and concern over what others fail to do to live in the past with you, that's fine. It changes nothing. But, you really should understand that when you cite past events as being evidence of the "rightness" of your presentations, there will be responses, citing other past events showing the opposite as well. Which, of course, you will call, "nonsense", as you do whenever you're views are challenged.
Uno,
In the first place, I never wrote the sentence you ascribe to me. But, that's altogether commonplace in the postings lately. False attributions, etc., make up for the complete lack of any substantial thought concerning the topic, or subject; which false and straw-man tactics now seems to have become just another hallmark of Republican/"conservative" arguments.
Perhaps you should read history. As to the matter of investigations: Yes! The accusations - including a whole host of inventions, and fantasies - were the objects of an intense scrutiny, at the cost to taxpayers of millions of dollars, by a Special Prosecutor. In the end, the worst that appeared was Clinton's inability to keep his zipper up in the Oval Office, which didn't even come close to rape.
But then again, Republicans/"conservatives" don't seem to be bothered much by contrary facts - in history, or even in current events - when they set out to slam, slander, insult, and otherwise defend the indefensible.
There is a real difference between making assertions which are totally unfounded on even the slightest ghost of facts and being unable to spend all day at the computer. If you feel insulted by presentations that give you material designed to enlighten and instruct, that's your problem. The constant reiteration of something that one knows to be nothing more than falsehood is not excused by pleas of "no time to learn the truth".
If you think it right to do no more than constantly use such words as, "traitor", "coward", "Communist", "liar", etc., etc., as the response to those who post ideas with which you disagree - or simply do not want to take the time to consider, and attempt to understand - that's up to you. However, it shows just how foolish those who do this are, when they whine and cry about someone else implying - or outrightly stating - both ignorance and stupidity on their part. (The "you" there being, of course, generic and inclusive of all who participate.)
Those who don't want to learn, won't.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 09:48 AMBush, Clinton, Bush...Clinton?
Forty percent of Americans have never lived whe there wasn't a Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?
http://www.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070928/ap_on_el_pr/bush_clinton_fatigue_2
Posted by William on September 28, 2007 12:12 PMI say in '08...NO BUSH, NO CLINTON............
Posted by Justsayin' on September 28, 2007 01:56 PMI just want to bring up the "Happy Birthday" song Marilyn Monroe sang to JFK...if, oh say, Christina Aguliera or Britney Spears did that in this day what a HOOPALA would be raised. And not only was the Pres. "doing her" so was his brother and his best friend.....hmmm...the times they are a changin'.
On the job, what I do is boss' business...Off the job, my own. I will never take a drug test for a job, against my rights, is an illegal search and seizure with no reason to believe I've broken the law, can't check my pee. Work with a bunch of Alcoholics, would rather work with pot-smokers......
Olf Grouch,
Are you getting a little senile? If you didn’t post “So why get upset about criminal Presidents?” on this page on September 26, 2007 08:32 PM, than who the hell did?
If you gonna rattle off your usual insults, that at least inject some facts into it, or I’m gonna think that you’re completely loosing it.
“If you feel insulted by presentations that give you material designed to enlighten and instruct, that's your problem.” – and your bold faced lies is yours.
Uno,
My apologies. I did write the line, as a tag line, back on the line. It was written the day before your question concerning it. When I was answering that posting, I didn't scroll back far enough. And, since it was a tag line, intended to finish a satirical comment about concerns shown for other incidents, it didn't stick in my memory. Again, my apologies.
If you read the full posting, I think you will find that the point of the question itself was, simply, the complete lack of balance between continuously repeated attacks on a former Democratic Party President and the equally continuous refusal to even mention the scandals that mark the Administrations of Republicans. Both have historical place.
And, insofar as my comments be concerned, both are matters of PAST HISTORY.
If it makes someone feel good to attack the one, there should be no particular upset when someone else presents material about the other. Yet, the utterly ridiculous self-righteousness of those who can't get over their fixation about how "bad", or "sinful", or otherwise "unsuitable" Clinton was/is carries with it the equally ridiculous determination to forget, or to refuse to acknowledge- even to obliterate from memory, were that possible - the even worse conduct of such as Nixon; and that of other Republicans today.
In perspective, Clinton couldn't keep his pants zippered up in the Oval Office. Nixon was named as an unindicted criminal co-conspirator in a major felony case. Although Clinton was impeached, he was not found guilty of any offense grave enough to put him out of Office. Nixon left the Office in disgrace, before impeachment proceedings were completed. Additionally, while there are differing opinions concerning the matter of Clinton's acts of Executive Clemency, i.e., Pardons, etc., at the end of his term - together with an even more ridiculously outrageous set of accusations that he participated in murdering people - the people caught up in these frenzies of idiocy never speak of the fact that Republican Administration members, including Attorneys General of the United States, went to jail, convicted in the very felonies that were laid at the doorstep of the then President.
I acknowledge forgetting having written something; and I apologize for the error.
How about some equal response on the part of people who have lost their basic touch with reality; and have gone off the deep end of taking personal insult and umbrage when it is pointed out to them that their idols have not only feet of clay but actual criminal records as well?
Or, better yet: How about getting with the 21st Century, and offering sensible ideas for solving today's manifold problems, rather than just spinning one's wheels over who gets to cast the first - and the largest number of - stone(s) for what happened "back when"?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 08:56 AM