The Clinton Thread II

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Mistress Gluon

Ah, yes. The alleged bribes where Hillary's brother apparently accepted money, and then told the President how to do his job. However, selling presidential pardons? Big time no no. Clinton would be serving time right now in found guilty of that. As would Hillary's brother. A loooong time.

Or selling history for other people to share and enjoy. Truly an evil man. =l (To be absolutely fair, I find it a little disrespectful. But sharing a nations history isn't exactly a bad thing)

Allowing former presidents to help with negotiations is nothing new for any president, and is usually a sign of respect for former presidents who wish to use their influence to help American interests abroad and at home. Absolutely insidious.

As for gutting the CIA, he asked them to reduce spending where? It's not just, "Yeah, everything you're doing. 40% of that needs to go." Budget cuts, ESPECIALLY in DoD areas, are always targeted of purpose, like the Cold War funding budget cuts and reallocation. However, his counter-terrorism had not suffered nearly as much, especially by the idea he gave authorization to the euthanasia of Bin Laden. The big thing about CIA budget is, we're not allowed to know it. So when and if it finds itself getting "gutted" it's either at the admission of the CIA director, the President, or someone who has some form of control over that, like Congress. It's easy for some field workers to say, "Yeah, we got budget cuts, so we can't perform our job as well," or "Since there was a reallocation of resources, it prevented us from performing as well as we have," or "Yeah, Clinton's budget-cuts in no way show the leaks America has always suffered since the days of WW2, where American's have constantly pointed the finger at other countries who developed technologies fairly similar to American technologies." This leads to -

The truth of the matter with "selling secrets" is 1) The most likely case is, Clinton is trying to show good faith towards a country you've ALWAYS had a problem with, and they're sort of your friend for now. Remember, even back then, China was an emerging economic power. Not making friends with people who you sort of want to make money off of is not very smart. 2) China is not constructed of idiots. Eventually they WILL figure out rocket technology. With 1 billion people there, it's not hard to believe a group of them might eventually figure out how to put a cylinder into space. Iran can do it, and I'm fairly sure they don't need Clinton selling our government secrets for that. 3) Companies share and sell information all the time. It's a cornerstone of business industry. "You scratch my back by doing my work for cheaper, I'll scratch your back by sharing some information. We all win." America definitely should not take one out of Russia's book, and just go into supreme isolation, rather than try to build bridges with the world's largest populated country. It worked out great for Russia being isolated, after all. Pretty sure that Soviet Union is just chugging along well without any allies to speak of. But the real thing of this is, nobody really KNOWS if Clinton did it. Especially as it was all allegedly tied to illegal funding. As it's highly f'ing illegal to do so, Clinton (if caught doing it) would be serving quite a long sentence in prison right now.

Also, carpet bombing several thought of al-Quaeda facilities. Not a real reaction at all. It's not like Clinton got some form of backfire for destroying any Sudanese pharmaceutical plants in the crossfire or anything like that.

I forgot about the evil CRA revision. Clinton's plan to refine examinations along more consistent qualities, reduce paperwork needed, extend credit to everybody, and to reduce costs was part of his evil, overarching plan to cripple the country itself. Evil indeed. Dr. Doom would learn well from Clinton. Because, it is well known in no way could the situation be taken advantage of in unforeseen ways like many laws and technologies do by industry leaders and individuals themselves.

Clinton didn't like, "Yeah, I'm gonna totally jump start a recession," and then dump it on the next president. Recessions and growths are common. During the 90's growth, which would be the longest growth America had ever seen economically under Clinton's watch, America had achieved an economic surplus it had never seen before. Unfortunately, it would be things like the dotcom bubble burst, terrorist attacks, and other factors which led to an extremely minor recession. This recession would only last for a single year in 2001, and would not see another recession for another six years in 2007. In 2002, America was believed to be in a non progressing, yet non recessing economy. Many people believe the terrorist attacks were what put the nail in the coffin for the recession at all, and could have possibly been avoided.

As for Travelgate, what I remember about it was: Clinton fired his Travel Dept because the FBI had told him they were embezzling money, and would in turn hire another firm he knew (which wasn't necessarily as devious as it sounds, as it was a travel firm they used back in Arkansas regularly). The courts stepped in, told him to give them jobs elsewhere, and replace the firm. Some people were charged with embezzlement, but were never convicted as guilty ultimately. Apparently, the Travel Office had an "off the books" ledger, with over a dozen thousand dollars unaccounted for, and is most likely assumed to have been used for personal reasons, or to accommodate the press which regularly visited. This was not helped by the idea one of the staffers held highly messed up paperwork. In the end, the President was not found guilty of any wrongdoing, or conspiracy to serve his own agenda.

In all honesty, if those are the WORST things a president of the United States ever has to come against, allegations of wrongdoing, with the only charge sticking is his adultery with Monica and Gennifer, and the rest having no evidence for, then he actually was a pretty good president. Hardly anything here holds any weight other than allegations without substantial evidence to back them. Most of the charges of adultery fall apart when under scrutiny, and the rest of it just personal hatred for whatever reason.

I mean, was the guy the all time best president America ever had? No. But he didn't dress up in a cape, wring his hands menacingly, cackle at night by lightning storms, have horses jump and run at the sound of his name, or scheme world domination plans as the leader of the Bilderberg Group in their Fortress of Evil. It's not ignorant to call your hatred irrational, when really, the guy is being accused of unfair things.

It's one thing to hate a man on principle for cheating on his wife. Fully understood, and fully sympathized. It's another to hear about something he might have done, grip it as the absolute fact of existence, and launch cannons at the guy with no evidence for it.

Now, if you -have- evidence for it, I'd love to see it. I'm always willing to review evidence I'm not aware of previously (especially in politics, since information is always on an emerging scale). But if not, cool off, take a few breaths, and relax.

Wait, are you trying to deny Clinton's selling of pardons? Have you even heard of the name Marc Rich? I am sure it's coincidence that Clinton happened to pardon the husband of a huge contributor to Clinton's library and Hillary's New York campaign. But who cares, right? It's not as if the man was one of the FBI's most wanted criminals, or that he was involved with some suspect Oil-for-Food deals (that benefited Saddam Hussein). Oh...wait...that's right.

At least he wasn't a terrorist, unlike the FALN terrorists Clinton inexplicably pardoned.

As far as there nothing wrong with "selling America's history", I find it more than simply "disrespectful" when the proceeds from the Lincoln Bedroom did not go to the government, or the people, or charity - but the Democratic Party.

Your response to Clinton's CRA increases is ridiculous. I never claimed Clinton had horrible MOTIVES when he acted, but motives are irrelevant when the consequences are so dire. Clinton's legislative action worked to play a huge role in the economic problems we have to day - we cannot ignore that because he was a great character on SNL.

Again, the reality of the situation is if Clinton wasn't charming and charismatic he would be seen as one of the most disgusting figures in American history. He is Ulysses's Grant without the military record and class.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Excel

A woman wanting to preform sexual acts on a man makes the man a sexual predator?

A wah?

Clinton's history of using his position to prey upon lower level women employees is well documented. There are several women that have accused Clinton of RAPE.

Clinton's actions regarding Monica Lewinsky demonstrated that he had NO REGARD for the well being of his mistresses and had no problem sacrificing them in order to save his own ass.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

Clinton's history of using his position to prey upon lower level women employees is well documented. There are several women that have accused Clinton of RAPE.

Clinton's actions regarding Monica Lewinsky demonstrated that he had NO REGARD for the well being of his mistresses and had no problem sacrificing them in order to save his own ass.

Accusations do not equal guilt.

[Excel]

Please. Bill Clinton, as the President of the U.S., did not need to rape anyone in order to get his dick wet. C'mon now. It was "rape this one girl...or have consential sex with one of the other 1000".

Bill didnt rape anybody.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Originally Posted by Marx

Accusations do not equal guilt.

Thats what I keep telling everybody about OJ!

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Marx

Accusations does not equal guilt.

When there is smoke there is fire. Given Clinton's history, his treatment of the other women, the fact there is no evidence DISPROVING it and the similarities between Juanita Broddrich, Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky - it would be impossible to dismiss the charges completely.

This is a man who, as President, when being asked about Monica Lewinksy - a woman she had CONSENSUAL SEX WITH - he lied and said that she (Monica) STALKED HIM.

Now let's think about this...a PRESIDENT accuses an individual of stalking. What happens to Presidential Stalkers? They get visited and have their lives turn around by the Secret Service.

But Clinton didn't care about that. He cared about getting pussy and avoiding all the consequences of his actions.

Again, a disgusting human being and a disgrace to the landscape of American politics.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Excel

Please. Bill Clinton, as the President of the U.S., did not need to rape anyone in order to get his dick wet. C'mon now. It was "rape this one girl...or have consential sex with one of the other 1000".

Bill didnt rape anybody.

Bill wasn't President. I'm going to ignore the fact that rapists don't work like that. They don't "rape this one girl" because they don't have other options to "get their dick wet".

[Excel]

Or even as Governor. He never had to rape anyone, ever.

The women who had consensual sex with him and then come out claiming it was rape deserve whatever **** Clinton gives them.

These chicks they think **** their way into his life; that Bill's gonna leave Hilldog for them or whatever, and when that does not happen, blackmail him the rape. He shoulsdnt have put himself in the situation in the first place, but its nothing that bad or uncommon.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Humphrey Bogart

Thats what I keep telling everybody about OJ!

Don't even get me started on OJ.

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Excel

Or even as Governor. He never had to rape anyone, ever.

The women who had consensual sex with him and then come out claiming it was rape deserve whatever **** Clinton gives them.

Excel, stop - you are making a fool of yourself.

A lack of available pussy does not cause people to rape. Enjoying the power and control (you know...the sort of person that may have the ego to run for the highest position in the land) is what fuels them - not a lack of other options.

[Excel]

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

Excel, stop - you are making a fool of yourself.

A lack of available pussy does not cause people to rape. Enjoying the power and control (you know...the sort of person that may have the ego to run for the highest position in the land) is what fuels them - not a lack of other options.

I have a lot of trouble believing Bill Clinton is on that big of an ego trip that he has to rape women to feel dominant...whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Excel

I have a lot of trouble believing Bill Clinton is on that big of an ego trip that he has to rape women to feel dominant...whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

When you have a history of sexual misbehavior and, as a public figure, have no shred of evidence proving your innocence - there has to be doubt in your innocence.

We do know that Clinton and Broaddrick was in Little Rock at the time of the alleged attack. We know that Clinton had no official plans the morning of the alleged rape. We know that a friend of Broaddrick's claimed she looked "distressed" after the alleged rape took place. We know that Clinton was aware of Broaddrick's existence and acknowledged her later.

You combine that with his track record regarding Flowers, Jones, Lewinsky - and you have a lot of smoke.

[Addendum]

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

Again, a disgusting human being and a disgrace to the landscape of American politics.

It's not like the landscape was that pleasing to look at.

[LouFerignoDemon]

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

Wait, are you trying to deny Clinton's selling of pardons? Have you even heard of the name Marc Rich? I am sure it's coincidence that Clinton happened to pardon the husband of a huge contributor to Clinton's library and Hillary's New York campaign. But who cares, right? It's not as if the man was one of the FBI's most wanted criminals, or that he was involved with some suspect Oil-for-Food deals (that benefited Saddam Hussein). Oh...wait...that's right.

At least he wasn't a terrorist, unlike the FALN terrorists Clinton inexplicably pardoned.

As far as there nothing wrong with "selling America's history", I find it more than simply "disrespectful" when the proceeds from the Lincoln Bedroom did not go to the government, or the people, or charity - but the Democratic Party.

Your response to Clinton's CRA increases is ridiculous. I never claimed Clinton had horrible MOTIVES when he acted, but motives are irrelevant when the consequences are so dire. Clinton's legislative action worked to play a huge role in the economic problems we have to day - we cannot ignore that because he was a great character on SNL.

Again, the reality of the situation is if Clinton wasn't charming and charismatic he would be seen as one of the most disgusting figures in American history. He is Ulysses's Grant without the military record and class.

It's not ridiculous at all. Throughout all of your posting concerning Clinton, you've clearly been making him out to be a horrible, ill-meaning person. It's really not that large of a jump of reasoning.

As for Marc Rich, I have heard of the guy, and it's no exact surprise he got a pardon after helping Clinton so much. In all honesty, ALL presidents work this way. You make it sound like Clinton was some special case, where a big contributor somehow managed to corrupt an office never before known for any form of corruption or influence, and get out of it. Was it right of him? Probably not. Was his pardon bought? Maybe. Does it make Clinton the slime of hell? Definitely not.

Honestly, he sold it to other members of the Democratic Party? A dastardly plan. One that goes right down the annals of history like cremating of the Jewish people, or killing droves of Native Americans.

Even without his charming and charismatic persona, he'd still be regarded as someone who did well in office, given that really, he didn't cause or get much trouble aside from a few (mostly harmless and unproven) scandals.

Originally Posted by Excel

I have a lot of trouble believing Bill Clinton is on that big of an ego trip that he has to rape women to feel dominant...whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Well, when you take your cues from Nancy Grace dealing with anything which remotely resembles rape allegations...

Originally Posted by StorminNorman

When you have a history of sexual misbehavior and, as a public figure, have no shred of evidence proving your innocence - there has to be doubt in your innocence.

We do know that Clinton and Broaddrick was in Little Rock at the time of the alleged attack. We know that Clinton had no official plans the morning of the alleged rape. We know that a friend of Broaddrick's claimed she looked "distressed" after the alleged rape took place. We know that Clinton was aware of Broaddrick's existence and acknowledged her later.

You combine that with his track record regarding Flowers, Jones, Lewinsky - and you have a lot of smoke.

Damn, I just discovered another rape case. I was raped by the governor of New Mexico, because he had no official plans to be in Albuquerque, where I also was two weeks ago. It's an ironclad case. Because he searches out random as hell women, and rapes them, in places where he can be readily and easily identified. It's a proven fact, because he likes women, and might have affairs from time to time. What do you mean you want evidence?

Connecting two dots does not equal any form of justifiable argument.

But the real problem here is in two cases. The friend of the lady claimed she was distressed, and possibly so. A single person, a friend, nonetheless is hardly ironclad evidence for anything, as friends will regularly go to bat for other friends. This means her only real evidence to any of this, is a story she changed a few times, being in the same town as Clinton (which is literally the most basic of evidences), and a friend said she was distraught. Now, I'm no big city lawyer, but I wouldn't even take the case without a large cash advance. She wasn't even a credible enough person of interest against the President's character to bring her in at his impeachment. If the Republicans sure in the hell didn't think she had a case to make, good chance is, there isn't a good case to make.

In relations to Clinton being a rapist? Let's look at the list you provided.

Jones: Flaky case who's only witness said she wouldn't mind being Clinton's girlfriend, and waited nearly the full three years, just like a week short before the statute ran out to make her claim. Truly an open and shut case.

Flowers: Someone who claimed to have made a willing, and long-lasting relationship with Clinton. This must prove Clinton is a rapist, if rape implies consentual sex.

Lewinsky: Also consentual.

The laundry list you provided only says there's smoke above women who will willingly have relations with Clinton. (Though Jones apparently turned him down.) This doesn't constitute an apparently character flaw to rape women.

Seriously, you gotta stop with the, "Ready, Aim, I hate Bill Clinton for any alleged reason and am willing to believe even the faultiest of allegations, Fire!" It doesn't make a good debate, it sure in the hell doesn't make a good point, and it really doesn't add ANY credibility against Bill Clinton.

In fact, the entire point of him cheating on his wife has absolutely nothing to do with him being President. All people have character flaws. I'm a horrible person myself, and am more than willing to grind down on my team if I don't think they're doing a great job. Does it make me a great person? No. Does that likewise mean I'm a horrible director? No. It means I'm a horrible person.

But to go back to the point of his FALN pardons. Unwise? Sure. Controversial and confusing? Definitely. But he did say he wanted them to renounce violence. It could easily be seen as him trying to NOT give the rest of FALN a reason to continue their violence. A more forgiving America is an America which is harder to hate.

But honestly, you'll go on believing what you want regardless of whatever may or may not be fact and conjecture. All -I- ask, is don't put labels on people who don't deserve them because you personally dislike the guy. Now, if he diddled YOUR wife, I'd be far more understanding, but I doubt he did. So just lighten up so the rest of us can actually enjoy discussion on him which doesn't degrade into this.

[Humphrey Bogart]

Originally Posted by Mistress Gluon

Even without his charming and charismatic persona, he'd still be regarded as someone who did well in office

Probably not so much. It was precisely his charm and charisma that carried him into office for the most part. I still get into arguments with my friends and family who claim he was the "first black president" lol. Rawanda happened, the Three Strikes bill happened, the Welfare reform law also happened. Much like the Kennedy presidency alot of Clinton's mistakes and outright terrible decisions are swept away because most people were attracted to his personality. The same goes for Ronald Reagan. Kennedy in my view was a bad president, Clinton and Reagan are somewhere in the middle. As opposed to the "amazinggoshdarnawesome" story that often get told about them.

[LouFerignoDemon]

I agree his charisma and charm weathered his personal shortcomings. But I really don't think people would go around calling him a trench, baby killing monster if he didn't have them. They'd probably refer to him as a decent president who never really did anything outstanding. People are just more happy with him not really having any other problems with countries, and his ability to make friends with them.

Unfortunately, we'll never know how the country would think of him without his charm. Though, I definitely agree charm DOES help image.

[Kelly]

I don't necessarily have to personally like the person in order for me to think they are doing a good job as President, and the opposite is true as well.

Obama seems a little too arrogant for my taste, but it didn't keep me from voting for him.

[hippie_hunter]

Originally Posted by Mistress Gluon

As for Marc Rich, I have heard of the guy, and it's no exact surprise he got a pardon after helping Clinton so much. In all honesty, ALL presidents work this way.

Bush didn't. Despite his massive use of cronyism, he was surprisingly disdainful of pardons. And those he did pardon weren't his buddies, they were people who committed their crimes almost 20+ years ago.

[LouFerignoDemon]

I stand corrected. You're right, Bush did not.

Thanks for the correction. =D

[NY1981]

Clinton's economic "success" can be summarized by one word: internet. I'm sure Al Gore is proud

[Addendum]

Originally Posted by Humphrey Bogart

Probably not so much. It was precisely his charm and charisma that carried him into office for the most part. I still get into arguments with my friends and family who claim he was the "first black president" lol. Rawanda happened, the Three Strikes bill happened, the Welfare reform law also happened. Much like the Kennedy presidency alot of Clinton's mistakes and outright terrible decisions are swept away because most people were attracted to his personality. The same goes for Ronald Reagan. Kennedy in my view was a bad president, Clinton and Reagan are somewhere in the middle. As opposed to the "amazinggoshdarnawesome" story that often get told about them.

Can't blame Clinton for Rwanda. You know, since it's a sovereign nation in another ****ing continent and those who actually did the genocide are to blame for that.

[Kelly]

Those to blame in Rwanda are France and Belgium, just as the blame goes to other colonizing countries raping the countries of Africa...

IMO...

[Humphrey Bogart]

Originally Posted by Addendum

Can't blame Clinton for Rwanda. You know, since it's a sovereign nation in another ****ing continent and those who actually did the genocide are to blame for that.

Please...use some "***ing" common sense and see that I understand that he obviously wasn't personally responsible for the genocide. So obviously that wasn't the "***ing" point I was making. Sarcasm aside, Clinton could have done much to help the people there and flatly refused to act. In an interview with the Boston Globe he said that not acting was one his biggest regrets. And for good reason.

[Marx]

GENERAL PETRAEUS HELPS OUT SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...id=jt9n12-NlZm

[StorminNorman]

Originally Posted by Mistress Gluon

It's not ridiculous at all. Throughout all of your posting concerning Clinton, you've clearly been making him out to be a horrible, ill-meaning person. It's really not that large of a jump of reasoning.

The fact I have accurately described Clinton as a dishonest and corrupt politician with a history of sexual deviance and possibly predatory behavior is completely different from a cartoon villain. Clinton's flaw is not that he wants to do bad, but his ego is HUGE. He didn't intend to ever do wrong (as he did with the CRA), in fact he thought it would be forever remembered fondly. It was all to prop up his legacy. Sadly he was mistaken - as he was quite often.

As for Marc Rich, I have heard of the guy, and it's no exact surprise he got a pardon after helping Clinton so much. In all honesty, ALL presidents work this way. You make it sound like Clinton was some special case, where a big contributor somehow managed to corrupt an office never before known for any form of corruption or influence, and get out of it. Was it right of him? Probably not. Was his pardon bought? Maybe. Does it make Clinton the slime of hell? Definitely not.

Honestly, he sold it to other members of the Democratic Party? A dastardly plan. One that goes right down the annals of history like cremating of the Jewish people, or killing droves of Native Americans.

Even without his charming and charismatic persona, he'd still be regarded as someone who did well in office, given that really, he didn't cause or get much trouble aside from a few (mostly harmless and unproven) scandals.

No, not all Presidents work this way. That is simply not true. The act of selling pardons is hardly frequent and never gone without criticism.

The fact you seem so accepting of clear and obvious corruption and abuse of government is alarming. Bill Clinton was not typical.

Well, when you take your cues from Nancy Grace dealing with anything which remotely resembles rape allegations...etc. etc.

Lets look at what we do know. Bill Clinton has a history of using a position of power to seduce and sleep with multiple women. He continues this action, without any regard to the feelings of his wife, no matter how many times he gets caught. He lies about it, every time he is caught - no matter how many times he gets caught.

In covering his ass, he has no problem making claims that can potential impact the lives of his mistresses (Monica Lewinsky and the Secret Service) and has no problem allowing the media attack them personally.

If you don't think this sort of behavior reflects that of a sexual predator, fine. If you are going to describe that sort of behavior as that of a man worthy of any respect? What does that say about you?