Bill Clinton... One of the worst presidents ever

[WRESTLINGFAN]

It amazes me how so many people are infatuated with Bill Clinton.

He has got to be one of the worst presidents.

Instead of worrying about national scurity, he spent billions of dollars trying to punish Bill Gates during the Microsoft Case.

The terrorist attacks of Sept 11th might have not happened if Clinton allowed the Sudanese government to hand over Osama Bin Laden in 1998. But he rejected it.

While trying to get the country's attention off of the Lewinski scandal, he launched cruise missles into Afghanistan which killed a couple of scorpions

Clinton turned the Somalia operation into a fiasco when he wouldn allow Tanks, Armored vehicles and a C130 Gunship in Mogadishu. 18 soldiers were killed as a result of his bad judgement

There was a time when he lost the codes for the nuclear weapons program.

The Clinton administration gave North Korea, A known enemy 6 billion dollars for Nuclear Energy research. Nw North Korea has Nuclear weapons. Stupid F'N Hick Idiot

Say what you want about watergate, but there were never any corpses Like wih the Whitewater Scandal

Sure the Economy was great during the 90's but that was a result of Reaganomics. Clinton just took credit for it.

Bill Clinton made a joke out of the Presidency over his 8 years, but Its amazing how so many people think hes the greatest thing since the wheel was invented.

Kinda makes you think when the #1 rapper is white and the #1 golfer is black

[FUNKMAN]

The terrorist attacks of Sept 11th


UM! Who was President when this occurred?

Who's watch was it?

HMMM!

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[WRESTLINGFAN]

Dont blame Bush for Sept 11th

Kinda makes you think when the #1 rapper is white and the #1 golfer is black

[FUNKMAN]

Dont blame Bush for Sept 11th



well don't blame Bill... or i'll give you such a pinch...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[HBox]

There was a time when he lost the codes for the nuclear weapons program.


???????

While trying to get the country's attention off of the Lewinski scandal, he launched cruise missles into Afghanistan which killed a


So you can get away with saying that Clinton launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan to avert attention from Lewinsky but anybody suggests that Bush invaded Iraq to get attention away from the shitty economy, and they're just lefty, communist anti-Americans. Yeah.

The Clinton administration gave North Korea, A known enemy 6 billion dollars for Nuclear Energy research. Nw North Korea has Nuclear weapons. Stupid F'N Hick Idiot


Bush gave $200 million to the Taliban to fight drugs. And that was an aid package, not for nuclear research. (Not that that makes it much better)

Say what you want about watergate, but there were never any corpses Like wih the Whitewater Scandal


Yeah. Who cares about the rampant abuse of power. Who cares that this country has never had the respect and trust for the president that we had before then. You call Clinton a fukcing idiot redneck, but then would like us to believe that he got away with secret murders? Make up your mind.

Sure the Economy was great during the 90's but that was a result of Reaganomics. Clinton just took credit for it.


Yeah, right. That would really explain why the economy went down the crapper for the 4 years of the first Bush presidency.

Clinton wasn't one of the best presidents. But he's sure as hell better than either of the Bush's, IMO.

[FiveB247]

Sure the Economy was great during the 90's but that was a result of Reaganomics. Clinton just took credit for it.

What are you smoking? Pass it around to everyone else...it'd only be fair...

Reaganomics put the US in the Worst deficit the nation has EVER been in. Not to mention all the labor problems and um-employment issues.

You may claim that Reagan defended the nation by spending an exorbitant amount of tax money on security....but to say his economics somehow led to Clinton's reform of the economy to a surplus...that's just absurd.

I don't really think you can pinpoint blame on one specific action or person to why 9-11 wasn't avoided. It is a serious of failures, decisions and calculations. You can't blame just Clinton...or you can't blame just Bush. To do so shows the bipartisan agendas of voters and government officials.

[silera]

If I blame him will you pinch me?


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[LiquidCourage]

Actually, the Sudanese government offered Clinton bin Laden 4 times.

And did he do ANYTHING after the bombings of those 2 embassies and the USS Cole?

[WRESTLINGFAN]

The balanced US Budget in 1998 was nothing more than creative accounting. He took money out of the Social Security budget to make it appear like a balanced budget, more sneaky clinton tricks

Kinda makes you think when the #1 rapper is white and the #1 golfer is black

[LiquidCourage]

Poor Vince Foster...
Can't we all just get along?

[FUNKMAN]

If I blame him will you pinch me?



i would be honored...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[Meatball]

The Clinton administration gave North Korea, A known enemy 6 billion dollars


Im sick and tired of our hard earned money going to enemies of the US. Its one thing to give aid to countries who are bona-fide, proven friends of Democracy and the US ..but when we give money to countries like Korea and the Taliban and a dozen others..you just want to get sick. Its time to take the checkbook away from these morons.

<IMG SRC="http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/meatball1.jpg">

[FelixDasGato]

shouldah, wouldah, couldah

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/felixwalk.gif">

[FUNKMAN]

Im sick and tired of our hard earned money going to enemies of the US


you've got enemies in your own backyard...

let's go after these fuckers... Come On who's with me? Moe, go to the trunk and get the axe handles... We got to put the fear of god into these heathen scums... Let's bust some fucking skulls...

http://money.cnn.com/2003/04/28/news/wallst_settlement/index.htm

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[silera]

It was all Clinton's fault!!!

The Easter Bunny stole my candy corn!!!!!1



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[FUNKMAN]

It was all Clinton's fault!!!


that's all i can stands cause i can't stands no more...

get ready for some rosy cheeks...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">



This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 4-29-03 @ 12:57 AM

[Se7en]

Oh this thread just has bad idea written all over it.

But what the hell.

I don't think Bill was one of the worst presidents ever. But he's probably one of the most overrated.

Reaganomics put the US in the Worst deficit the nation has EVER been in. Not to mention all the labor problems and um-employment issues.

You may claim that Reagan defended the nation by spending an exorbitant amount of tax money on security....but to say his economics somehow led to Clinton's reform of the economy to a surplus...that's just absurd.


Reagan was hands down a better president than Clinton.

But let me preface that by saying that's my opinion.

I say it's my opinion because otherwise, you'd likely post a bunch of shit trying to show how I'm not right, and frankly, I don't fucking care. For matters of efficiency, I'm simply going to say IT'S MY OPINION, and thus I will be spared any voluminous responses that I will have to conveniently ignore because - like I said - I don't fucking care.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

"By the laws of this very government - whether they want to accept it or not - every American is complicit in the darkness that this country spreads across the rest of the world - simply by paying taxes." -- Inali Redpath
"That's terrorist double-talk and I, for one, am SICK of listening to it." -- Captain America

"We have become too civilised to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil."
---George Orwell

[FUNKMAN]

I say it's my opinion because otherwise, you'd likely post a bunch of shit trying to show how I'm not right, and frankly, I don't fucking care. For matters of efficiency, I'm simply going to say IT'S MY OPINION, and thus I will be spared any voluminous responses that I will have to conveniently ignore because - like I said - I don't fucking care.



i am laughing right now... not at you, you are speaking the truth... it seems this is what the board has come to...

now has anyone seen Silera...

<img src="http://www.chesapeakebay.net/images/bluecrab_closeup.jpg">







This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 4-29-03 @ 9:33 PM

[HBox]

I don't fucking care


You DO care, and I shall now post reply after reply convinving you of that!

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think Bill was one of the worst presidents ever. But he's probably one of the most overrated.

Ditto. Based on everything I've learned with history, I haven't really been impressed with an American president since Truman. Johnson and Nixon were ALMOST there, but were bogged down by the absolute messes of Vietnam, personal paranoia and Watergate, respectively...

Se7en's also right in that this thread was posted just looking for trouble...boo.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-29-03 @ 2:12 AM

[JerryTaker]

You know, some days you can actually hear the level of intellegence in this country falling...


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[A.J.]

Yeah, right. That would really explain why the economy went down the crapper for the 4 years of the first Bush presidency.


Actually the economic turnaround started in the last year of Bush 41's term.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[DarkHippie]

I <3 revisionist history

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Pappy McSchmear]

Clinton was a piece of garbage for disrespecting the office but electing George Bush caused the Sept.11 attacks. Fanatics seem to hate Republicans more.

))))Sippindee is not 4 me((((

[FiveB247]

Disrespected the office? Did he do it any worse the JFK cheating on his wife? Nixon and scandals? It's all a media perception.

Do you realize the President almost lost his job for cheating on his wife? Is it immoral?....Yes. Worth losing the President over? Not by a long shot. It was a witch hunt by the Republicans. You may not like the man, his politics, etc...but getting a bj from an intern is a long way to attempt to remove the President of the US.

Geez, if immoral acts were good enough reasons to remove Congressmen and government officials, we'd have around a dozen people making policy for the country...haha

[afterganger]

He almost lost his presidency over lying underoath. If you don't think its a problem for a US President to perjur (sp?) himself during his presidency, then you're entitled to your opinion. The idea that he was almost impeached is revisionist spin on what I consider a serious issue. No one cares that he had an affair, I personally didn't take him seriously enough to think he could have further embarassed himself than he did before that scandal. And I don't find it shocking at all considering the amount of scandals that surround his presidency that soemone went gunning for him because he was more or less able to cover his ass on the other ones.

Someone questioned the lost nuclear codes. Col. Patterson, I think its his name, who carried the nuclear "football" for a few years during the Clinton administration revealed in a book he wrote that Clinton lost the codes on two separate occasions. I don't recall if he had anything to prove this statement other than his word vs. others. But listening to him tell the stories, he seemed believeable enough. Though as obvious from the Brill book regarding Hillary's deceit post 9/11 that the media doesn't always cover "anti-clinton" scandals.

[afterganger]

Wow, my grammar was awful. I really need to proofread these posts. I meant to say that he was impeached because of an affair was revisionist spin, and that the media doesn't typically carry much in the way of Clinton scandals or Brill's accusations and Patterson's accusation would have been bigger news stories. But I don't want to break open the liberal media pandora's box discussion.

[JerryTaker]

he was impeached because of an affair was revisionist spin


The Impeachment charge was purjory

The "Purjory" occored when he said he didn't have an affair.

Where's the revisionist spin?

I guess if he had preceeded "I did not have sex with that woman" with "read my lips" everything would be hunky dory...


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[TheMojoPin]

and that the media doesn't typically carry much in the way of Clinton scandals

Uh, have you WATCHED TV/read a newspaper/listened to the radio ANY time in the last 11 years?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[CaptClown]

Disrespected the office? Did he do it any worse the JFK cheating on his wife? He wasn't taken to court about it and didn't lie on the stand.
Nixon and scandals? It's all a media perception.
Nixon had enough sense to resign before they had enough votes to impeach him.

Do you realize the President almost lost his job for cheating on his wife?
No, he almost lost his job because he committed perjury in a legal proceeding. As a lawyer he should have known the ramifications of such an act. Or did we forget that he also lost his license to practice law too?

Is it immoral?....Yes. Worth losing the President over? Not by a long shot. It was a witch hunt by the Republicans. You may not like the man, his politics, etc...but getting a bj from an intern is a long way to attempt to remove the President of the US.
Getting caught committing FELONY while in office is fair and above board.

Geez, if immoral acts were good enough reasons to remove Congressmen and government officials, we'd have around a dozen people making policy for the country...haha

If you listen to some of the conspiracy theorist , there really are around a dozen people running the government and the rest are just pawns.



Director of the C.Y.A. Society.
Field Marshal of the K.I.S.S. Army
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonFez/files/cptsig.gif

[Doogie]

Disrespected the office? Did he do it any worse the JFK cheating on his wife?

And that my friend is the one and only connection between JFK and Clinton. JFK was a brilliant man who was an ardent patriot and a visionary who saw a goal for our nation (Man on the moon/Apollo, Peace Corps, etc). Ok so Kennedy may have of cheated and that is not necessarily a crime, but he didnt get caught for it. Lets not forget people that Clinton WAS NOT on trial for cheating on his wife. He was on trial for something that 100+ citizens of this nation are currently in jail for, and that is perjury. AKA Lying under oath. That is what he was on trial for.

Now do I feel that Clinton was the greatest President, no. The worst, no. People, presidents usually have very little to do with how an economy does directly. Sure an election of a new prez may raise or lower people propensity to trade, but rarely do they directly affect the economy. Was Reganomics a failure? Yes and No. It was a short term objective to raise the economy of a nation that had been sagging since 1966, which had faced the demoralizing effects of Vietnam. The humiliation of a gas crisis, the hostage situation in Iran, the end of detente, and a military that was in dissaray (the US Navy still sported Essex Class carriers, WWII vintage carriers, as front line carriers). Reganomics did overhaul many aspects of this nation including above but did have its consequences in the 1990's.

There has been one other presidential economic program that was as much a failure as Reganomics and that was the New Deal. The New Deal did put Americans back to work, but did not neccessarily revive the economy. The outbreak of WWII in Europe and subsequent treaties made with Britain led to the revival of our economy.

Now back to Clinton. I will say this for Clinton, he is the only President to bring the warring factions of the IRA and UK together at the peace table and then helped hammer out a peace solution in Ireland. It would take the events of 9/11 to bring about the official end of the IRA, but Clinton made the first steps in the peace process. Something that the greatness of JFK, or Nixon, or Reagan never did. And Clinton did not assassinate Osama in 1998 because he was honoring an international treaty which would prevent assassinations around the world. The fear was that leaders of the European Union and other western leaders would be targeted by the terrorists in retalliation. It is easy to judge in hindsight, especially immeadiate hindsight. But never forget the rules that were in place at that time frame of history.

History is filled with "what if's". 'What if Washington was captured at NY (and not Trenton)?' What if Constantinople fell in 711 to the Muslim invaders (And not the more popular battle of Tours)?' 'What if Hitler hadnt diverted the troops to the Kiev pocket and proceeded to allow Guderian his move on Moscow?' It is easy to judge in hindsight, but decisions are made throughout history that allow for things to happen either for the better or worse. Dont be so quick to point fingers without divrting a finger at yourself first.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks!!!
"Impossible is only the failure of imagination"
<marquee behavior=alternate>The Jedi Master and an incredible hound dogga</marquee>

[FiveB247]

Afterganger...you are incorrect. Clinton was put on trial cause he lied in a trial regarding sleeping with an intern and cheating on his wife. I don't think that constitutes 'the national interest'. And if you somehow think the media doesn't play a huge part in all of this...you're insane.

[A.J.]

Clinton was put on trial cause he lied in a trial regarding sleeping with an intern and cheating on his wife.

He was impeached because he lied about his assignations with Lewinsky, et.al. during the Starr investigations stemming from Whitewater.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[DarkHippie]

It seems to me like whenever someone says that Clinton is a bad president, the only hard facts they can go to is his impeachment trial for cheating on his wife. They ignore the fact that his administration was so effective that even that couldn't sink him.

He eliminated the national debt (which good economy or not, was amazing) created Americorps, was strong domestically, over seas, and fiscally. what more could you have asked for?

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[afterganger]

Here's an explanation of the impeachment from the "ultra right wing" Court TV since some people appear to be confused.

http:/ / http://www.courttv.com/archive/casefiles/clintoncrisis/guide.html

[afterganger]

As a New Yorker I'm concerned that Hillary Clinton may have lied to an author regarding her actions post 9/11, as I'm sure most New Yorkers would be whether they like her or not. Her politics aside, that to me seems like a pretty big story. Now if you can explain to me how author Stephen Brill can appear on various local talk and radio shows to discuss the topic, but can be completely be omitted from any of the local papers and say that the newspapers aren't acting strangely I'm not sure how to make a more clearer case. You can at least acknowledge that doesn't appear to be normal operating behavior for newspapers can't you?

BTW, how do you isolate and quote people's text?

[JerryTaker]

I find it unsettling that people are willing to beleive that there was a vast conspiracy around Whitewater, and that the Ciintons had Vince Foster killed, and that the money for the deal was funded by Clinton's friends in the S&L....

Yet they have so much trouble beleiving that Reagan sold arms to the Iranians so that they would <I>wait</I> to release thier American hostages until Reagan was elected president, making him out to be a hero out of the gate...

Or that the Cheney/Powell administration isn't making TONS of money off "<B>O</B>peration: <B>I</B>raqi <B>L</B>iberation,"

Or make the connection between The Bush family and Keating and the S&L bankrupcies of the early '90's

Now, I find credence in <I>all</I> of the above, not just the ones perpetuated by republicans or democrats. It's all the same to me, because our government is very self serving. I just can't understand why you people are so in love with the Republican regime...



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[LiquidCourage]

I still want to know what exactly Clinton did.

Some people say he's one of the best Presidents of all time, but he's probably the only President ever to not have any major event/crisis attached to his name.

[LiquidCourage]

Yet they have so much trouble beleiving that Reagan sold arms to the Iranians so that they would wait to release thier American hostages until Reagan was elected president, making him out to be a hero out of the gate...


Yeah, it seems like you really have no idea what you're talking about.

[A.J.]

Yet they have so much trouble beleiving that Reagan sold arms to the Iranians so that they would wait to release thier American hostages until Reagan was elected president, making him out to be a hero out of the gate...

I think you're confusing Iran-Contra with the hostage crisis of the Carter years.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FUNKMAN]

Come On Guys...

You are arguing Politics... Don't you know that Everyone Is Right and Everyone Is Wrong...

let's get back to the things that count...

Cock / Pussy / Weed / Beer / Yayo / Steak / Mashed Potatoes / Vegetables / Fruits

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[TheMojoPin]

People, presidents usually have very little to do with how an economy does directly.

That's not necessarily true. Presidents play a very key role in inspiring market confidence. Clinton only helped along an economy that was in a natural upswing and was heavily boosted by the emergence of the internet marketplace; he was in the right place at the right time. But for whatever reason, he DID inspire confidence in the marketplace, and whenever he or his government discussed economic issues, it tended to reflect well on the market. For whatever reason, people seemed to think he was the right guy for the right time. Bush, unluckily, is here at the WRONG time, and thusly gets the "blame" for the economy, and because of that stigma, news of his actions towards economic issues often leads to a dip or drop in the market. Go figure.

But ultimately, crediting Clinton with the 90's boon is as ridiculous as crediting it to Reagan or crediting the current downturn to Bush.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[JerryTaker]

Yeah, it seems like you really have no idea what you're talking about.



I think you're confusing Iran-Contra with the hostage crisis of the Carter years.


Ok, then, oh so super intellegent posters, for a change, enlighten me.... maybe it wasn't weapons but was there not a conspiracy <I>theorized</I> that those hostages would have been released during Carter's admin, but American officials told them to wait until after the election, lame duck period, whatever, to make the public beleive that Reagan himself had the hostages freed?

I also notice you had nothing to say about my other points...



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[A.J.]

Ok, then, oh so super intellegent posters, for a change, enlighten me.... maybe it wasn't weapons but was there not a conspiracy theorized that those hostages would have been released during Carter's admin, but American officials told them to wait until after the election, lame duck period, whatever, to make the public beleive that Reagan himself had the hostages freed?


Yes, that was the "October Surprise": a conspiracy theory that George H.W. Bush somehow worked a deal with the Iranians during the 1980 election that they would not release the hostages after Reagan was inaugurated. A Congressional investigation during Bush's term as President found no evidence of such a deal.

I should have mentioned this in my previous post so you wouldn't think that I was busting your balls.

I also notice you had nothing to say about my other points...

That's right -- I don't give much credence to conspiracy theories. They're entertaining...like Oliver Stone's JFK

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

This message was edited by AJinDC on 4-29-03 @ 3:45 PM

[furie]

There was a time when he lost the codes for the nuclear weapons program.


I never heard of this. what's the story behind this?

Yeah, right. That would really explain why the economy went down the crapper for the 4 years of the first Bush presidency.

umm, no. we were in a recession cause by overspending in Reagans terms for 11 months. most of 1991. that's it.


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

This message was edited by furie on 4-29-03 @ 3:43 PM

[Doogie]

Mojo, I meant to say that the President doesnt always affect the economy directly. I see your points, and I rest on my mattress full of money cause of the confidence that Clinton inspired.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/doogie.gif>
ADF Fan since day one...this sig rocks!!!
"Impossible is only the failure of imagination"
<marquee behavior=alternate>The Jedi Master and an incredible hound dogga</marquee>

[JerryTaker]

That's right -- I don't give much credence to conspiracy theories.


ok, but this was my point. The investigation into whitewater found no wrongdoing other than the Purjory charge, which really had nothing to do with the actual deal. All the Vince Foster and S&L stuff is <I>also</I> conspiracy theory...

My question was: Why are people so willing to believe the Whitewater conspiracy talk and not the "October Surprise," "Iran Contra" or "S&L bankrupcy" theories???



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[travis151]

O.K. Bill Clinton was not a bad President, but he is overated. Why he didn't do anything except sign on Republican bill for Welfare reform. Remember Bill Clinton is the only President to win with out majority of populations votes. Around 40% why? Ross Perot f'ing it up. But thats O.K. with me he one fair and square. Also if anybody read anything about Reganomics it was built to help people to invest money in companies where the payoffs would be seen 10-15 years down the line not just a quick fix. That why people invest for profits down the road. Also Presidents aren't perfect they are given bad advice, but the most overrated President is by far Kennedy so what he claimed Americans on the moon and the Peace Corp just go to any libary and read what he acheived.... nothing besides banging every women in and out of D.C.

Red Sox=More Better

[HBox]

Remember Bill Clinton is the only President to win with out majority of populations votes.


No. Bush Jr. also won without the majority of the popular vote. Not trying to bash him, just a correcton.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, I'm sure there are other president's who won the lelection without a majority of the popular vote. I'm assuming that you mean over 50% of the vote.

This message was edited by HBox on 4-29-03 @ 7:28 PM

[LiquidCourage]

JerryTaker, it's mostly conspiracy theory buffs who agree with that idea.

[LiquidCourage]

My question was: Why are people so willing to believe the Whitewater conspiracy talk and not the "October Surprise," "Iran Contra" or "S&L bankrupcy" theories???

I don't think anybody disputes that the Iran Contra scandal happened.

Some people just say "So what?" about it though.

[high fly]

With Iran/Contra, Reagan and company knowingly broke the law and paid ransom for hostages, then when they didn't get all the hostages, paid more ransom in the form of arms to a terrorist-supporting state that had murdered hundreds of Americans.
Then the bastards LIED LIKE HELL TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it.
Though there were impeachable offenses in Iran/Contra, the Democratic leadership decided not to put the country through the turmoil such an action would bring.
Today, Republicans still find ways to excuse it all.


" and they ask me why I drink"

[furie]

Remember Bill Clinton is the only President to win with out majority of populations votes.

who posted this in the first place?


No. Bush Jr. also won without the majority of the popular vote. Not trying to bash him, just a correcton.

EDIT: Actually, after thinking about it, I'm sure there are other president's who won the lelection without a majority of the popular vote. I'm assuming that you mean over 50% of the vote.



read this: <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781456.html" target="_blank"> Fifteen candidates (three of them twice) have become president of the United States with a popular vote less than 50% of the total cast. </a>


<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[DarkHippie]

Also if anybody read anything about Reganomics it was built to help people to invest money in companies where the payoffs would be seen 10-15 years down the line not just a quick fix
If that WAS the case then Reaganonmics (which should really be called (Thatcheromics) was very poorly planned. It gave huge breaks to companies in the 80's then expected them not to cash in when they had the chance and retire as uber-billionaires. Well, they did, and that's why there was no "trickle-down."

It took faith in Clinton and his "focus on the forgotton middle class" to revive the economy, not the slash and burn corporate barbarianism of the 80's.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[A.J.]

It took faith in Clinton and his "focus on the forgotton middle class" to revive the economy,

...and the Republican majority in Congress which tempered his spending.

And keeping Alan Greenspan on as Fed Chairman.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

This message was edited by AJinDC on 4-30-03 @ 1:51 PM

[Bestinshow]

It gave huge breaks to companies in the 80's then expected them not to cash in when they had the chance and retire as uber-billionaires.

Oh yeah, the 1986 tax reform act with the virtual elimination of tax shelters and the passive activity laws all really helped the companies in the `80s. What was that about ridiculous accusations? And I also missed your sources. That is the way we do things here you know(as I was told).

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

This message was edited by Bestinshow on 4-30-03 @ 3:26 PM

[Drudge Jr.]

i'm not going to read this entire thread so i'm sorry if i'm repeating anything. but i would like to point out that clinton was no crappier than bush or reagan. look at bush and reagan's international policies and the horrible things that happened around the world because of their administrations.

[center]
<img src="http://drudgejr.JNIV.net/drugde.gif">
thanks to the ghost of jim morrison for making my sig






This message was edited by Drudge Jr. on 4-30-03 @ 3:29 PM

[furie]

Quote:
There was a time when he lost the codes for the nuclear weapons program.



I never heard of this. what's the story behind this?


I'm still waiting to hear the story behind this.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/surfer2.jpg" width=300 height=100>

[travis151]

I've just read 2 books abotu the Iran/Contra affairs. Yes, it was illegal to sell arms to terroist country. The plan for hostages for arms blew up in their faces don't know why anybody would trust terroists? I agree Reagan knew about the arms for hostages deals and the U.S. also got cash from Iran. But he really thought if the hostages were set free people wouldn't of cared about selling these arms to terroists as long as Americans were set free. Which of course would of been the case. The Contra goes to the fact Col. North bought weapons with the Iranian money to give to guerillas in Central America to fight against communism. I do beleive at the time it was the right thing to do but of course never trust Iran.
Dark Hippie if it was for Republican Congress Clinton would of raise for taxes. The U.S. did benefit from Reaganomics it was planned to help down the road once again. You are right though most of the people who benefited from tax cut just saved the money not investing thats the flaw in tickle down economics once you get the break from the taxes you have to use that money by invest and spending etc.

Red Sox=More Better

[DarkHippie]

Oh yeah, the 1986 tax reform act with the virtual elimination of tax shelters and the passive activity laws all really helped the companies in the `80s. What was that about ridiculous accusations? And I also missed your sources. That is the way we do things here you know(as I was told).
Here's a source. read it, especially the part about reagan's 1986 tax reform, and how it wasn't reaganomics at all. (see, I can back my remarks up)
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/REAGANOMICS.HTM

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[Bestinshow]

Here's a source. read it, especially the part about reagan's 1986 tax reform, and how it wasn't reaganomics at all. (see, I can back my remarks up)
Visit this Website

If that was your source, than why did you give all the credit to Clinton who did little to tax reform. "Your" source (cough cough) clearly gave Reagan the credit for closing the loopholes with the 1986 act. Your source shows your original post meant jack.

And I don`t have to back up information that everyone else seems to know but you.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[DarkHippie]

If that was your source, than why did you give all the credit to Clinton who did little to tax reform. "Your" source (cough cough) clearly gave Reagan the credit for closing the loopholes with the 1986 act. Your source shows your original post meant jack.
Reread my posts, get your timelines straight, and don't put words in my mouth.

And I don`t have to back up information that everyone else seems to know but you.
I'm sure that "everyone else" would be less than happy to know that you speak for them.

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

This message was edited by DarkHippie on 4-30-03 @ 7:10 PM

[FiveB247]

Neoliberalism as its now called by the Reagan and Thatcher types clearly place tax burdens, present and future, on the average citizen as well as use the foundation of privitization and corporate agendas to make the rich, richer and the poor, poorer. Reagan put our nation into a the Largest Deficit EVER in its history.

You may not want to give Clinton credit for the economic surge. Some of it he is responsible for, other items were market factors and economic variables which all were benefited. But there's no way in hell you can claim Reagan or his economic policies led to that turnover or any boom similar.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 4-30-03 @ 9:08 PM

[Bestinshow]

But there's no way in hell you can claim Reagan or his economic policies led to that turnover or any boom similar.

Well, before you go off halfcocked, you better acquaint yourself with the 1986 Reform act. And read the code or some reasonable summary of it. Not that propaganda that you read that puts some conspiracy spin on it. Read a pure version and than tell me that Regan didn`t plug up a hugh tax hole. If you don`t draw that conclusion, than you are in never, never land. He plugged hugh corporate tax loopholes.

By the way, Reagan increased the deficit because of defense spending that was necessary when Carter depleated the military.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>



This message was edited by Bestinshow on 5-1-03 @ 1:13 PM

[Bestinshow]

Reread my posts, get your timelines straight, and don't put words in my mouth.


It took faith in Clinton and his "focus on the forgotton middle class" to revive the economy, not the slash and burn corporate barbarianism of the 80's.

Last I checked, 1986 was the `80s and was before Clinton. Seems my timeline is fine.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[JerryTaker]

oh, I love these arguments, "Articles that agree with me is absolute fact, and articles that dont are biased propoganda." Jesus christ, does Everyone's capacity for points of view end at "one"?

Empathy is dead, I guess...



<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[DarkHippie]

Last I checked, 1986 was the `80s and was before Clinton. Seems my timeline is fine.
But the '86 tax reform didn't reverse the what Reaganomics did. Worse, I believe that it eventually encouraged corporations to "cash out," since the supply side economic reforms were artificial to begin with (meaning that they artificial caused a bull market) altering them artificially caused a bear market.
In addition, we still had a tremendous deficit to deal with. Clinton's plan built from the ground up, as opposed to the top down (you can equate the difference to a pyramid vs a suspension bridge)

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[FUNKMAN]

Bill is my man
if he can't do it nobody can...

i think i'll call him tonight to see if he wants to make love...

Bill Cinton and Sam Malone(Cheers) are the two greatest men of the 20th Century....

<img src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/images/bc42.gif">

<img src="http://s9000.furman.edu/~ejorgens/cheers/gifs/sam.jpg">





This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 5-1-03 @ 12:42 PM

[TheMojoPin]

Hey, all I know is that Bubba didn't need a mini-loudspeaker next to his podium so his aides could translate all the "White House speak" for him...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bestinshow]

In addition, we still had a tremendous deficit to deal with. Clinton's plan built from the ground up, as opposed to the top down (you can equate the difference to a pyramid vs a suspension bridge)

But Clinton`s plan stripped down the military
and intelligence budgets which had to be restored. Doesn`t that make his plan just as "artificial"?

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[DarkHippie]

But Clinton`s plan stripped down the military
and intelligence budgets which had to be restored. Doesn`t that make his plan just as "artificial"?
No, "artificial" refers to tampering with the basic economic principles of supply and demand. Reagan boosted the supply side of it(business), believing that eventually it would increase demand (consumers) by lowering prices, etc. It was a good theory, but there are alot of good theories of there that don't work. Marxism is a good theory too, but in practice, it's a nightmare. Why? and why would I mention Marxism and reaganomics in the same thread . . . .

I'm actually going somewhere with this . . . :)

marxism can be considered in many ways antithecal to Reaganomics. it is Demand-oriented, giving the consumers what they need, and the businesses be damned. however, without the businesses, the consumers cannot get what they need, and the system falls apart.

In Reaganomics, something more complex happens. the businesses have the power, because they control the supply. They can either give some of that power to the consumer (by lowering prices, what i believe reagan intended) or they can keep the power and get rich. of course they kept the power. Since we live in a free market system, there was nothing that could (or should ) have been done to stop this.

Eventually the businesses felt it was time to sell, they sold, and we went into a depression.

Of course, this is all just my theory, but i think its fairly logical

<IMG SRC=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/darkhippie2.gif>
<i>LABELS ARE FOR PRODUCTS, NOT PEOPLE! DON'T HUG A TREE, PLANT ONE!
</i><a href=http://www.freeopendiary.com/entrylist.asp?authorcode=A537085>Gonads and Strife: a journal</a>

[LiquidCourage]

Has anyone here ever read the book "Dereliction of Duty"???

[LiquidCourage]

In addition, we still had a tremendous deficit to deal with. Clinton's plan built from the ground up



Are you referring to the single biggest federal tax increase he laid down?

[Bill From Yorktown]

UM! Who was President when this occurred?

Who's watch was it?



I liken that to saying "We're leaving you on YOUR 1 yard line, and the other team has the ball on the first down. Good luck stopping that touchdown, sucker"

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

[TheMojoPin]

Has anyone here ever read the book "Dereliction of Duty"???

Yup. Interesting stuff. Pretty scary if it's true...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[TheMojoPin]

I liken that to saying "We're leaving you on YOUR 1 yard line, and the other team has the ball on the first down. Good luck stopping that touchdown, sucker"

I don't blame either president, and find it absurd that anyone could try to. Hindsight's always 20/20, but you have to realize that before 9/11, the kind of attack that went down wasn't just unlikely, it was UNTHINKABLE. People just didn't consider it except in the most fantastic assumptions, and it just seemed so improbable that the focus remained on more likely avenues of attack, like hijackings, kidnappings, bomb threats, suidcide bombers...if "blame" can be assigned anywhere, it's really only on our intelligence community's lack of imagination, but that's ultimately very unfair. As the old saying says, "you always start off the current war by fighting with what you learned in the LAST war"...with armed conflict of any kind, you're always playing catch up, unfortunately...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bill From Yorktown]

I'm not blaming Clinton for everything, but what I'm saying is do not say "Bush was in office when it happened so it's his fault" which is what the other dude said. I agree with your assessment - stop laying blame and do something about it (which is what Bush is doing). I read a very interesting book last fall on the FBI/CIA trail of the Oklahoma City bombings and how close they were to the 911 feinds several times but due to burocracy, were forced to let things slip through the cracks.

<IMG SRC="http://hometown.aol.com/billb914/sigpic.gif">

[LiquidCourage]

Mojo, I was skimming through that book today at the bookstore.

Scary stuff!

[Bestinshow]

Hippie, The Reaganomics portion of your argument against Reagans economic plan makes sense (Although I don`t remember the results myself. I do believe you must stimulate business to stimulate the economy and if done correctly would "trickle down" to everyone)but you are still not giving him credit for fixing much of this problem with his `86 act which still effects business today and not enough blame to Clinton for depleating the military and cutting the intelligence agencies which forced hugh spending now.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

Hippie, The Reaganomics portion of your argument against Reagans economic plan makes sense (Although I don`t remember the results myself. I do believe you must stimulate business to stimulate the economy and if done correctly would "trickle down" to everyone)but you are still not giving him credit for fixing much of this problem with his `86 act which still effects business today and not enough blame to Clinton for depleating the military and cutting the intelligence agencies which forced hugh spending now.

Trickle down economics is exactly that...the rich soak up all the wealth and profits while the scraps barely trickle down and the regular people (getting peeing on). Every President has an agenda, some include raising taxes, balancing budgets, military growth, etc... You can't do everything at once and the way our system works, it's all cyclical. There will be a future president who balances the budget like Clinton, just like there is Bush nowadays creating a deficit via military spending in the same fashion Reagan did. The sad part of it all, you'd think after seeing it over and over, someone would figure out a way to compliment everything instead of taking turns between all the peaks and valleys.

[Bestinshow]

Five, except for your first line I agree with your entire post. But that first line is the basis for your whole paranoia. That is why I refer to some of what you read as propaganda. Not every theory works as planned but not every theory that doesn`t is a grand conspirocy theory either. There are only a finite number of theives in this world. There isn`t this grand plan you envision of this big evil corporate controlled government empire as you envision. Sometimes it is as simple as just different perspectives on the sucess or failure of economic plans. Thank god we don`t live in the world you see. The trickle down "theory"
is a text book theory that is quite simple in theory and complex in application. In any economic model you have business and consumers and investors and employees.
Simply put if you stimulate the business it helps the investors and (theoretically of course) should help employees because more money is available for salary and this would create more income for spending (The whole key) which would furter stimulate growth. This would work in a fish bowl. Unfortunately, other elements in the environment(The stock market is driven by many factors,politics,international unrest,inflation,etc.)can derail the best layed plans. Not everything is an "agenda" to steal money. That is just paranoid.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

It's no theory, agenda or such...trickle down economics is a failed and flawed theory in practice. It has never benefitied an entire society, it benefits the rich, businesses and corporations. It may look like something logical on paper...but in practice it's results are fictious. And I never claimed it was an agenda or way to steal money.....but results don't lie.

If you recall, there was another president who used some similar methods in order to raise an economy from failing during an awful down swing. Hoover. His methods of trying to stimulate the economy were similar to those of trickle down economics. Obviously, times and laws were different...but the methods and practices were very similar.

[LiquidCourage]

Stop with the class warfare bullshit.
If you're poor, it's your own fault.

[TheMojoPin]

Stop with the class warfare bullshit.
If you're poor, it's your own fault.

And if you believe THAT, then you'll love meeting my old friend Bat Boy...

<img src=http://www.hauntedhousetexas.com/bat_boy.jpg>

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bestinshow]

It's no theory, agenda or such...trickle down economics is a failed and flawed theory in practice. It has never benefitied an entire society, it benefits the rich, businesses and corporations. It may look like something logical on paper...but in practice it's results are fictious. And I never claimed it was an agenda or way to steal money.....but results don't lie.


You sure make it sound like an agenda. this is what scares me about your paranoid theories. Everything to you is because of the rich or for the rich. By the way, it isn`t a crime to be rich nor is it immoral. You make the rich sound like the reches of the earth. It is growing tiresome.
You are too sure of your theories. I would like to see how you would stimulate the economy
without effectively stimulating business. I don`t see your theories doing anything but making sure "the rich" don`t continue to be sucessful because that is always your target.
I would like to see how you can prove that your theories wont "fail" in helping the economy. You don`t like taxcuts. You don`t like aiding business. You want to tax the shit out of anyone who is financially successful and squeeze all the sucessful corporations and that is going to stimulate the economy. I don`t see how your theories have or will accomplish anything to help the economy. Whats more, nobody has ever figured out exactly what helps and what hinders. Yet you talk like you have it all figured out. Don`t be so sure your theories aren`t flawed.Take it from the rich. That is your fix. Robin Hood doesn`t work in the real world.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[FiveB247]

You sure make it sound like an agenda. this is what scares me about your paranoid theories. Everything to you is because of the rich or for the rich. By the way, it isn't a crime to be rich nor is it immoral. You make the rich sound like the reches of the earth. It is growing tiresome.
You are too sure of your theories. I would like to see how you would stimulate the economy
without effectively stimulating business. I don`t see your theories doing anything but making sure "the rich" don`t continue to be sucessful because that is always your target.
I would like to see how you can prove that your theories wont "fail" in helping the economy. You don`t like taxcuts. You don`t like aiding business. You want to tax the shit out of anyone who is financially successful and squeeze all the sucessful corporations and that is going to stimulate the economy. I don`t see how your theories have or will accomplish anything to help the economy. Whats more, nobody has ever figured out exactly what helps and what hinders. Yet you talk like you have it all figured out. Don`t be so sure your theories aren`t flawed.Take it from the rich. That is your fix. Robin Hood doesn`t work in the real world.

I don't have an agenda. I never said I was against all those policies you named (tax cuts, aiding business, etc). Most of the policies that are enacted are to one extreme or the other....You can't tell me there isn't a common, middle ground in such policies which account for fluctuations between deficits and surplus's in government as well in implementation. Social programs, health issues, education, military spending, welfare, taxes, etc...all are implemented and funded at extremes. They're either top of the agenda or get massive cuts. It's all a cycle in which the remedy or solution to such problems get lost in bureaucracy, bipartisan arguing, as well as the constant changing of policies due to term limits and the complete retooling or shifting of spending. Answers, remedies and solutions are possible, but are all lost in the mix. Things like business agendas, corporate influences, lobbying and campaign reform/finanaces all hinder from things to change for the better (in the people's interest).

I have no problem with the rich...I have a problem with people profiting from others misery. Which many do.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[high fly]

Under 12 years of Raygun-Bush, where I live, in Northern Va., income for carpenters went up about 25%.
Under 8 years of Clinton, it went up 50%.
Also, let's not forget the massive debt that Ronald Raygun laid on us that Clinton managed to pay off.
Sure, Republicans had a role in what Clinton did, and it is a measure of what a good president that Clinton was that he was able to work so well in cooperation with the Republicans.
Contrast that with the increased polarization that we see with George "The Unifier" W. Bush.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[TheMojoPin]

Ronald Raygun

That's so fucking gay.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[silera]

Stop with the class warfare bullshit.
If you're poor, it's your own fault.

OK TERRIFIC.



<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[Bestinshow]

I don't have an agenda. I never said I was against all those policies you named (tax cuts, aiding business, etc). Most of the policies that are enacted are to one extreme or the other....You can't tell me there isn't a common, middle ground in such policies which account for fluctuations between deficits and surplus's in government as well in implementation. Social programs, health issues, education, military spending, welfare, taxes, etc...all are implemented and funded at extremes. They're either top of the agenda or get massive cuts. It's all a cycle in which the remedy or solution to such problems get lost in bureaucracy, bipartisan arguing, as well as the constant changing of policies due to term limits and the complete retooling or shifting of spending. Answers, remedies and solutions are possible, but are all lost in the mix. Things like business agendas, corporate influences, lobbying and campaign reform/finanaces all hinder from things to change for the better (in the people's interest).

I have no problem with the rich...I have a problem with people profiting from others misery. Which many do.


Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[GeneralCartmanLee]

clinton sucks (dick that is)

<IMG src="http://files.villagephotos.com/download/?file_id=36328">
YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!

[LiquidCourage]

And if you believe THAT, then you'll love meeting my old friend Bat Boy...


And that's what makes you such a terrific little liberal, Mojo.

When you fail at life, you know that blaming someone else is the right thing to do.

[FiveB247]

When you fail at life, you know that blaming someone else is the right thing to do.

That's kinda harsh wouldn't you say?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[TheMojoPin]

And that's what makes you such a terrific little liberal, Mojo.

When you fail at life, you know that blaming someone else is the right thing to do

Er, except I didn't blame ANYTHING on ANYONE...unless I somehow besmirched Bat Boy's good name, which would be pretty shitty of me...

And blaming poor people for being poor across the board doesn't make a you a "terrific little conservative", it just makes a wonderful gigantic asshole.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Se7en]

Er, except I didn't blame ANYTHING on ANYONE...unless I somehow besmirched Bat Boy's good name, which would be pretty shitty of me...

The Weekly World News would have to sue.

<img border="0" src="http://se7enrfnet.homestead.com/files/captainamerica.jpg" width="300" height="100">

"By the laws of this very government - whether they want to accept it or not - every American is complicit in the darkness that this country spreads across the rest of the world - simply by paying taxes." -- Inali Redpath
"That's terrorist double-talk and I, for one, am SICK of listening to it." -- Captain America

"We have become too civilised to grasp the obvious. For the truth is very simple. To survive you often have to fight, and to fight you have to dirty yourself. War is evil, and it is often the lesser evil."
---George Orwell

[TheMojoPin]

Bat Boy's solo now, dammit...he's his OWN bat...

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

...not giving him [Reagan] credit for fixing much of the problem with his '86 act and not enough blame to Clinton for depleating [sic] the military and cutting the intelligence budget

The "problem" Raygun had to fix was one of his own making and his '86 "act" was just that- an act. It was followed by Raygun's second recession.
FIVE-- you're not paranoid, but right on. When Raygun was in office, executive salaries went from about 25 times that of the lowest paid worker to about 250 times that of the lowest paid worker. The rich got their tax cuts and [shocker] kept it , or at least a large chunk of it, money that the theorists figured they'd use for employee raises and reinvestment.
The economic success under Raygun was achieved by massive borrowing more than anything else- money that future generations would have to pay back with interest.
"Trickle down" was exposed as a fraud by David Stockman in testimony before the Congress and appropriately named "Voodoo Economics" by Daddy Bush.
As far as cutting the military, I hope you'll be fair and criticize Rummy-- 9-11 put his program to cut the Army from 10 divisions to 8 on hold, but now it has been revived and they're working on it right now.
Clinton did not cut the intelligence budget, rather he doubled it.

" and they ask me why I drink"

This message was edited by high fly on 5-6-03 @ 12:44 PM

[FiveB247]

The Green section is when Clinton was in office and due to his policies...

Also notice the deficit's where at their highest when Reagan and Bush Sr. where in office.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/17/news/economy/war_cost/bars2.gif

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 5-6-03 @ 12:53 PM

[A.J.]

The Green section is when Clinton was in office and due to his policies...


...and the Republican majority in Congress which forced him to the center.



<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[FUNKMAN]

The Green section is when Clinton was in office


i thought that was the Monica section... only because it looks like it is going down...

<img src="http://www.markfarner.com/2001tour/ribfest8_small.jpg">

[FiveB247]

...and the Republican majority in Congress which forced him to the center.

Give me a break man. You may hate Clinton cause of the scandal, or cause he's a Democrat, or whatever the reason....but he did rid the US of it's deficit.

Every economic plan gets pushed to the middle by the other side. Look at Bush's plan now...he got about half of what he orginally asked for.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[A.J.]

Give me a break man. You may hate Clinton cause of the scandal, or cause he's a Democrat, or whatever the reason....but he did rid the US of it's deficit.

I'll grant you that he did but it only happened following the overwhelming rejection of his platform in the 1994 midterm elections. Clinton became much more "centrist" on the advice of Dick Morris: he abandoned his health care plan, gays in the military and other "liberal" ideas; he supported most of tenets of the GOP's Contract With America --- one of which proposed a balanced budget amendment; he stated that "the era of big government is over." His only way to get elected in 1992 and then relected in 1996 was to talk centrist if not conservative. The defeats he and his party suffered in 1994 made this necessary.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

[Captain Stubing]

Clinton did not cut the intelligence budget, rather he doubled it.

There is plenty of grist for the spin mill in your post but time is limited........

What figures are you using to say Clinton doubled the intelligence budget? As I remember it was about $30 billion when he came in and about $30 billion when he left (give or take a few billion). I would say the intelligence budget was fairly flat during Clinton and, ipso facto, decreased by inflationary standards. Do you have information to the contrary??

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[FiveB247]

What figures are you using to say Clinton doubled the intelligence budget? As I remember it was about $30 billion when he came in and about $30 billion when he left (give or take a few billion). I would say the intelligence budget was fairly flat during Clinton and, ipso facto, decreased by inflationary standards. Do you have information to the contrary??

If this is the case...then how do people get off "blaming Clinton for 9-11"?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Captain Stubing]

If this is the case...then how do people get off "blaming Clinton for 9-11"?

Just for the record I've never done that, although many people with whom I share a worldview have.

But, if the Intelligence budget was basically flat (and thus decreasing in purchasing power due to inflation) during the Clinton years it would follow that they were not able to perform their job at the same level as they were before the Clinton years. 9/11 becomes more possible then it would have been previously.

This, of course, assumes that funding levels directly correlate with performance......this is debatable, although it is the logic of public policy these days (have you heard of any advocacy group ask for LESS money??) so I'll stick with it. Additionally, some people might throw in other policies that occured on Clinton's watch (such as his transferring sensitive technology transfer authority from DoD and Justice to the Commerce Department) as contributing to a general environment of a perforated security posture, both at home and abroad.

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[East Side Dave]

Don't stop, thinkin' about tomorrow.

<img src=http://www.richstillwell.com/ESD.gif>
Big Ass Mafia

[TheMojoPin]

The only President in the last 15 years the cut intelligence budgets was the original Bush, and even that wasn't very significant. It was more of a surface gesture to try and show to the naysayers that he wasn't obligated to his old buddies in the CIA. Other than that, intelligence reosurces and funding have been either constant or upped in the last decade or so.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Bigden]

Can we all stop with the 20-20 hindsight, and remember what it really was like pre-9/11. We are all guilty of not paying enough attention to the outside world. Alot of people were making money hand over fist in the stock market, and the economy was chugging along. The U.N. was F-ing up the Bosnian conflict while all of us- Dems & Repub's- were satisfied watching Yahoo get to $200 a share. It was everyone's mistake not to get more involved with the rising tide of fanaticism in the Middle East- Clinton just happened to be the President. Yes he made many mistakes, but we all had our heads in the Sand, until they attacked us. Even the Embassy bombings seemed very un-threatening( on the African continent). I think that American's have always been that way- a by product of a free nation. When things are good we focus on our culture, but after the attack we are now focused on our enemy world terrorism. Lets just hope that we can fight it wherever it may live, and in time create a safer world for our children.

[JerryTaker]

We are all guilty of not paying enough attention to the outside world. Alot of people were making money hand over fist in the stock market, and the economy was chugging along. The U.N. was F-ing up the Bosnian conflict while all of us- Dems & Repub's- were satisfied watching Yahoo get to $200 a share. It was everyone's mistake not to get more involved with the rising tide of fanaticism in the Middle East- Clinton just happened to be the President


*applause*

<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[Captain Stubing]

Yes he made many mistakes, but we all had our heads in the Sand, until they attacked us. Even the Embassy bombings seemed very un-threatening( on the African continent). I think that American's have always been that way- a by product of a free nation. When things are good we focus on our culture, but after the attack we are now focused on our enemy world terrorism.

For lack of a better term, bullshit. From Somalia through to the USS Cole there were many people in the military and intelligence communities who were pushing for action and/or policy changes on many fronts and, furthermore, who thought that the political leadership lacked either 1) an understanding of what should be done, or 2) the nutsack to do it.
Many of us thought the Embassy bombings required serious retaliation as opposed to what we did (which in reality probably hurt us more then helped us).
We didn't ALL have our heads in the sand, and many of us who didn't are pretty sure that the previous administrations way of handling things didn't help our defense posture.

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[TheMojoPin]

We had more direct involvement under Clinton in Middle East affairs both millitarily and politically than any other president before him. In fact, our deep involvement and temporary success with the Israeli/Palestinian issue is, unfortunately, a HUGE factor towards the attitudes and dangers we're facing today. Our focus was on establishing some kind of peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Clinton didn't dictate the unpsoken intelligence "rule" of, "if it doesn't happen HERE, it's not the priority"...that had been around for decades, essentially since "modern" terrorism had begun in earnest in the 70's. It's absurd to somehow blame that on Clinton. It was just the assumed status quo that he walked into. We thought we we're untouchable, and we paid the price. The African and USS Cole bombings did not appear significantly different to the overseas terrorist strikes we suffered under Bush, Carter or Reagan. Just look at how easily the American public chucked off the '93 WTC bombing and the Ok. City bombing as the work of "lone nuts"...it was hardly a concious decision...that was simply the mentality of our hubris at the time. Anything else literally seemed impossible.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[FiveB247]

For lack of a better term, bullshit. From Somalia through to the USS Cole there were many people in the military and intelligence communities who were pushing for action and/or policy changes on many fronts and, furthermore, who thought that the political leadership lacked either 1) an understanding of what should be done, or 2) the nutsack to do it.
Many of us thought the Embassy bombings required serious retaliation as opposed to what we did (which in reality probably hurt us more then helped us).
We didn't ALL have our heads in the sand, and many of us who didn't are pretty sure that the previous administrations way of handling things didn't help our defense posture.

I'm sure for every military or intelegence person with a good idea or way we could remove a threat, there are a handful more just wanting to pursue war or actions against some enemy or threat cause they can. Military and intelegence are great things...but they do not seek peace...they seek war to make the peace. They all want to test out their new toy bombs and weaponry. The military isn't for showing...it's for use..and that's exactly how the US policies are exercised.

And let's not make it seem as Islamic Fundamentalism just appeared. It's growing now...but it's been around and strong for a long time. It just all finally caught up with the US in an awful catastrophe in 9-11.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[JerryTaker]

the American public chucked off the '93 WTC bombing and the Ok. City bombing as the work of "lone nuts"...it was hardly a concious decision...that was simply the mentality of our hubris at the time. Anything else literally seemed impossible.


Except the people that made the HBO movie "Path to Paradise" in the late '90's. It ended with remnants of the terrorist cell from the '93 bombing swearing to take the towers down next time, then the tunnels and bridges. It's not as if <I>nobody</I> thought of it, they were just ignored...


<IMG SRC="http://afs30.njit.edu/~gsm2321/faramir.gif">

<marquee width=300 scrollamount="5">Wet and raving, The needle keeps calling me back.. To bloody my hands forever. Carved my cure with the blade That left me in scars, Now every time I'm weak, Words scream from my arm</marquee>

[Bergalad]

intelegence
Oh my.
I'm sure for every military or intelegence person with a good idea or way we could remove a threat, there are a handful more just wanting to pursue war or actions against some enemy or threat cause they can. Military and intelegence are great things...but they do not seek peace...they seek war to make the peace.
Now the military is a bunch of warmongers to you? What is true is that you have no perception of what the military is or who the people are who are in it. I dont' even know how you consider yourself qualified to make inflammatory statements like this. You said before you never said a bad word about the military, well remember what you said here, because I sure will. "...just wanting to pursue war...because they can." Why don't you just scream "babykiller" at us next time?

[TheMojoPin]

Except the people that made the HBO movie "Path to Paradise" in the late '90's. It ended with remnants of the terrorist cell from the '93 bombing swearing to take the towers down next time, then the tunnels and bridges. It's not as if nobody thought of it, they were just ignored...

It's not that they were ignored, these ideas WERE considered, it's just that they were considered too fantastic to really be all that feasable. It STILL gets me when my dad tells me of the meeting he attended early in 2001 where one of the FBI liasons casually made note of several individuals attending flight schools had oddly requested to learn only how to fly the planes and not how to take off or land. Someone in the meeting then basically joked, "yeah, because if they got them they'd just crash 'em into something," and everyone moved on. People just didn't think it was a reasonable possibility.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 5-7-03 @ 5:16 PM

[FiveB247]

Now the military is a bunch of warmongers to you? What is true is that you have no perception of what the military is or who the people are who are in it. I dont' even know how you consider yourself qualified to make inflammatory statements like this. You said before you never said a bad word about the military, well remember what you said here, because I sure will. "...just wanting to pursue war...because they can." Why don't you just scream "babykiller" at us next time?

I never clasified the military in wholistic terms like you are saying, I have merely stated in the past that solidiers who place their life on the line shouldn't be disrespected. My comments are clearly in terms pointed at intelegence and military leaders...you know the one's in war rooms...not doing the actual fighting and making all the policies. And yes...the US military is used and uses methods of war mongering. It's called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace...look it up sometime.

War Pigs

Generals gathered at their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerers of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war maching keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds. Oh lord, yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away. They only started the war. Why should they go out and fight? They leave that role to the poor, yeah.

Time will tell on their power minds, making war just for fun. Treating people just like pawns in chess, wait til their judgement day comes, yeah.

Now in darkness world stops turning, ashes where the bodies burning. No more War Pigs have the power, Hand of God has struck the hour. Day of Judgement, God is calling, on their knees the war pigs crawling. Begging mercies for their sins, Satan, laughing, spreads his wings. Oh lord, yeah!

-Black Sabbath-

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bergalad]

You said intelligence (I spelled it correctly for you there) and military PERSONS, not war room figures. You are talking about the individual soldier. Your revisionism with each post is amusing. Instead of padding your post count (which is obviously what you are doing looking at all the posts you have suddenly, commenting on every little thing), maybe you should think about what you are saying.

[FiveB247]

Bergalad, This is my comment regarding intelligence and military people.

I'm sure for every military or intelegence person with a good idea or way we could remove a threat, there are a handful more just wanting to pursue war or actions against some enemy or threat cause they can. Military and intelegence are great things...but they do not seek peace...they seek war to make the peace. They all want to test out their new toy bombs and weaponry. The military isn't for showing...it's for use..and that's exactly how the US policies are exercised.

My comments are not geared towards soldiers (they do not make the decisions or policies..they carry them out)... Sorry If I didn't make it clear for you to comprehend. I thought it was obvious the way I stated it, it would be understood...but apparently I was wrong.

I do enjoy how you like to twist my words or make it seem as if I revise posts or switch my opinion on matters though. I find it funny. As for post counts...I'm far from posting for the sake of posting. If I have something to say, I say it...if not, I don't comment...it's nothing more.

Btw...I noticed you didn't write back to me about when you accused me of editing (content in) my post in the Pakistan thread? I completely proved you incorrect of such things...and you quietly shut up. hmm? Do you have a comment now?

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Bigden]

I don't think that the intelligence community or the military is to blame. I think we as American's just could not conceive the evil that was created by demeted Islamic clerics. I had no idea that these people slept in caves reading the Koran, and living for killing others. I have studied the Koran, and most of it preaches peace. The clerics cut out portions of it out of context to serve their evil ways. It is like taking the violent parts of the bible, and preaching them as the meaning of the whole book. Tom Freidman says it best: " We must educate the Arab street, in order to make them see the light. To realize that their ruling clerics living off the wealth of the land are strangling their potential to be relevant in the world."

[Bestinshow]

The "problem" Raygun had to fix was one of his own making and his '86 "act" was just that- an act. It was followed by Raygun's second recession.
FIVE-- you're not paranoid, but right on. When Raygun was in office, executive salaries went from about 25 times that of the lowest paid worker to about 250 times that of the lowest paid worker. The rich got their tax cuts and [shocker] kept it , or at least a large chunk of it, money that the theorists figured they'd use for employee raises and reinvestment.
The economic success under Raygun was achieved by massive borrowing more than anything else- money that future generations would have to pay back with interest.



Raygun? An act? Maybe you should stop reading comic books. Where did you get those idiotic salary numbers. I know you meant to exagerate but it is pure bullshit. This "act" that you obviously know jack about, plugged hugh tax loopholes and was aimed entirely at the rich. As a matter of fact to this day it has eliminated tax shelters. Tax cuts for the rich. What a joke. Liberals label every tax cut for the rich. You think tax cuts don`t stimulate an economy? I guess Clinton did it by expanding the cigar market.

<img src=http://publish.hometown.aol.com/gpigking/myhomepage/xxbis.gif?mtbrand=aol_us>

[silera]

When Clinton was in office, I saw myself progressing and actually earning more every year and saving a bit.

Since Bush has been in office, I earn less and less and everything costs more and I'm back at square one working two jobs trying to keep things together.

I don't think either of them are the sole cause for this difference, it just seems that republican policies protect the rich and democratic policies try to protect the poor.

It sucks when you're neither rich or poor because you're the one that's always fucked in the end.


<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

<font size=3><font color=red>I can't stand myself either.</font></font></center>
<font color=FBF2F7>

[Captain Stubing]

because you're the one that's always fucked in the end.

It's a slow, hanging curve....it's over the plate....

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[Captain Stubing]

War Pigs

Thank God for the honest brokers out there who keep Berg, myself and others from having to execute the nefarious doings of Dr. Evil (i.e. Rummy) and his shadowy band of Faustian creatures.

When you anchor your arguement about current events, the military, and political science on lyrics from Black Sabbath.....well, I think it speaks for itself.

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

[Bergalad]

Now you are bordering on pissing me off.
My comments are not geared towards soldiers (they do not make the decisions or policies..they carry them out)... Sorry If I didn't make it clear for you to comprehend. I thought it was obvious the way I stated it, it would be understood...but apparently I was wrong.

You said PERSONS. You said a HANDFUL MORE. Where did you differentiate between soldiers and anything else? You didn't. If you meant something else, then you should have fucking said that. Ambiguity is your fault, not the reader's.
Btw...I noticed you didn't write back to me about when you accused me of editing (content in) my post in the Pakistan thread? I completely proved you incorrect of such things...and you quietly shut up. hmm? Do you have a comment now?
Go to that thread and then you will see my response to this.

[FiveB247]

Capt. Stubing..I argued my point and placed War Pigs in the post in jest. It wasn't to prove my point.

http://www.waste.uk.com/gfx/bear.gif

[Death Metal Moe]

"And in conclusion, I'd like to tell all my dawgs here that Life ain't nothin' but bitches and money. Thank you! One love."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/70000/images/_73107_clint300.jpg

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<font size=1 color=333366>
<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>
</font>

666%

[Death Metal Moe]

Dude, I killed this thread! COOL!

ROT IN HELL THREAD!

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<font size=1 color=333366>
<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>
</font>

666%

[LiquidCourage]

"I was a horrible President."

-Bill Clinton, May 13th 2002

[Bigden]

"I didn't inhale" "I didn't have sexual relations with that women"
"I will just send a cruise missle and Bin Laden will be gone and not a worry anymore"


I made up the last one.

Bill Clinton

[HBox]

"When I was President, everybody had jobs and the whole world didn't hate us." - Bill Clinton

I made that one up.

[A.J.]

"When I was President, everybody had jobs and the whole world didn't hate us." - Bill Clinton

Just the Middle East.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.