LIST OF CLINTON'S MISDEEDS. TO FACILIATE KOHBURN, I AM INITIATING A THREAD TO POST ANY AND ALL THINGS CLINTON DID THAT WERE HARMFUL TO THE COUNTRY AND/OR THE PEOPLE OF THE US. I WILL START THE LIST:
1) Pardoned Symington
2) Signed NAFTA
3) Signed WTO
4) Signed GATT
Please continue if you feel you have something to add.
CLINTON'S MISDEEDS
Moderator: ericjon262
-
DiggityBiggity
-
DiggityBiggity
Are you fucking kidding me?richfiero wrote:raisd taxes. cut defense spending didnt do shit whn the cole was attacked didnt do shit when the trade center was bombed.
Dec 12, 1999
Acting on tips from U.S. authorities, Jordanian police arrested members of a cell planning attacks against Western tourists, including blowing up a large hotel in Amman, Jordan. A key member of this cell escaped but was later captured and is now serving a life sentence in Jordan. He was Raed Hijazi, a Boston taxi driver and American citizen who trained at bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan and who has recently been linked to the Sept. 11 attackers.
Dec 24th, 1999
Five armed members of the Harakat ul-Mujahidin organization (HUM), an Islamic militant group based in Kashmir, hijacked an Indian Airlines plane with 155 passengers. One passenger was killed. The plane was held by the hijackers one week in Afghanistan before the hostages were freed in exchange for the release of imprisoned pro-Kashmiri militants held in India. The hijackers were allowed to escape to Pakistan. HUM is on the U.S. government's list of terrorist organizations. It is ideologically linked to Al Qaeda because one of its leaders signed Osama bin Laden's anti-America fatwah.
Jan 2000
Terrorists failed in a planned attack against the American warship USS The Sullivans while it was refueling in Yemen. Information about the plot came from a suspect arrested after the successful attack on the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000. The suspect told Yemeni investigators an attack months earlier -- and almost identical to the Cole bombing -- had failed when the first assault boat became overloaded with explosives and sank. The attack was planned to be timed to the millennium.
Hmm.. what's this article about??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dy ... Found=true
And I have plenty more if you want to keep bitching about Clinton... so sorry he got his dick sucked in office... too bad he didn't start a false war in Iraq, a country who didn't even attack us, nor had the means to...
your paranoid leader
Diggity" :stfu: "Biggity
Ok, I was hoping for a little more detail with your argument, but I'm used to one-liners.richfiero wrote:raisd taxes. cut defense spending didnt do shit whn the cole was attacked didnt do shit when the trade center was bombed.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html
Raised taxes
- Reagan
- In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
Reaganomics
Definition
Economic program utilized during the Reagan administration, which emphasized low taxes, low social services spending, and high military spending. Contributed to low interest rates, low inflation, and large budget deficits.
- Bush Sr
- Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy.
This is why Bush Sr wasn’t as bad as originally thought. This is why he and Clinton get along so well and why I believe he thinks his son, the chimp, is such a fucked up president.
- Clinton
- On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education.
Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
- Legislation created to reduce the federal budget deficit by cutting spending and increasing taxes.
- Bush W
- President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law in 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. The largest was the first, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II, behind only the Kennedy tax cut signed by Johnson in 1964 and the Reagan tax cut in 1981. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%).
The Job Creation and Workers Assistance Act of 2002 provided tax relief to businesses and included a 13-week extension on unemployment insurance and tax breaks for taxpayers affected by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes.
MY ARGUMENT
So Reagan cut taxes and increased spending to insane proportions, hence the deficit soared through the roof and we pay interest on that money. Bush 1 was left with the disaster and did what he could, but he was a victim of his diaper-wearing mentor and paid with no reelection. Then Clinton enters the scene, signs into law in 1993 an act that raised taxes for a few years, got the annual budget back in the black, and then in 1997 when the government was in the black for the first time in decades, cut taxes to operate just in the black. Then comes Bush; he signs monster tax cuts and throws our budget so far into the red that Hoover is finally allowed to rest in his grave. So my question is this: were Clinton’s tax increases so bad? He’s the only president since the 1960 to operate in the black and he’s chastised by Democrat haters. Does it really make sense to decry his temporary tax raises? He was arguably the only fiscally responsible president since the early 60’s. I beg for an intelligent argument.
Look at this graph and do the math:
http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/g ... t_id=48848;
Then look at this one:
http://www.heritage.org/research/featur ... artc-4.jpg
B) Cut defense spending
This is partially true / partially false, but not necessarily a bad thing.. There was a trend since the Bush1 term to cut spending and troops.
SPENDING: http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.GIF
TROOPS: http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf (TABLE) http://www.dior.whs.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf
As you can see, the base reductions started in the Bush1 era. Per the table, I established Bush cut troops by 18% in 4 years and Clinton 21% in 8 years.
That trend continued into the Clinton years but was then halted in 1996 by pressure from Republicans.
Mr. Clinton, having cut welfare spending by $55 billion over six years in 1996, is giving defense an $124 billion spending increase. The surplus which was to have been targeted for education, Social Security, Medicare, and for the poor will be used to fight U.S. provoked "terrorism."
http://www.twf.org/News/Y1999/0118-RobPoor.html
Measured in 1995 dollars, U.S. defense spending has declined from a Cold War high of around $375 billion in 1988 to around $265 billion in 1997, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
MY ARGUMENT
Who was the enemy? Did a country attack us? Was there an impending attack? Was a country threatening to attack us? Wasn’t the façade of a threat gone in 89 when the wall fell? If so, why continue to spend, other than to line the pockets of the wealthy with corporate welfare? If need drives spending, shouldn’t we spend if, and only if there is a need? Isn’t it fiscally irresponsible to spend with no immediate or imminent need? According to the Republicans, no.
Also, there were base closures during the Clinton years, just as there are about to be some now. Critics were crying like babies then, but where are they now? Face it, it’s just Clinton-bashing without merit.
Clinton continued where Bush1 left off with his gradual cuts in troops and military spending until the Republicans pressured him to increase spending by way of impeachment, so he redirected social funds to the military; where’s the beef? Where’s the beef for Bush1 if Clinton was so bad? Again, it’s just Clinton-bashing without merit.
C) Inaction with bombing of COle and WTC
As posted above, Clinton did increase military spending in 96. Should Clinton have dropped everything and thrown this county into a war that would arguably yield nothing and blow us into an over 400 billion dollars deficit, like Bush has done? Is there a reasonable way to ever stop Middle Eastern terrorists from attacking the US? Not a fucking chance, other than to defend our borders. Keeping them preoccupied over there at the cost of 1 billion dollars per week and an average of 50 troops per week to date is viable or intelligent.
This crusty old nasty military war techer I had said there are 3 things you can do in the face of any security matter or disagreement like this:
1) Ignore it
2) Talk about it
3) Go to war over it
Of the three, #2 is the best choice. We are living #3 and it’s fruitless. #1 can work, but the best thing is to get out of people’s business and watch things rectify themselves. Either way all we can do is surmise what would have happened if…… We know what #3 is currently doing.
The big misdeed that will always remain in my mind: Clinton was caught lying during a public statement about something very specific. Therefore I can, without a doubt, not trust him at all. I dont care about his sexual relations with others, but I care about his candor while handling it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 081898.htm
Lack of candor answering the "did you have sexual relations" question:
1. Yes, I did
2. Deflect (see presidents below)
3. No, I did not
Other dubious presidents that come to mind as well:
- "I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue."
- "It's like I wasn't president at all,"
However, none of those admitted to it, leaving some semblance of doubt. Anyone can come out with a boldface lie, however, it requires some skill to deflect the answer.
--
Does GW lie? Probably. Can I decisively prove it first hand? No.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 081898.htm
Lack of candor answering the "did you have sexual relations" question:
1. Yes, I did
2. Deflect (see presidents below)
3. No, I did not
Other dubious presidents that come to mind as well:
- "I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue."
- "It's like I wasn't president at all,"
However, none of those admitted to it, leaving some semblance of doubt. Anyone can come out with a boldface lie, however, it requires some skill to deflect the answer.
--
Does GW lie? Probably. Can I decisively prove it first hand? No.
Last edited by zonyl on Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
zonyl wrote:The big misdeed that will always remain in my mind: Clinton was caught lying during a public statement about something very specific. Therefore I can, without a doubt, not trust him at all. I dont care about his sexual relations with others, but I care about his candor while handling it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 081898.htm
Another pres that comes to mind as well: "I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue."
--
Does GW lie? Probably. Can I decisively prove it first hand? No.
I love this Republican response to CLinton lying about getting a BJ. They are very careful to only refer to the act of lying and not what was lied about. The word, "SUBSTANTIVE" needs to come into play here. A lie about shoplifing is not the same as a lie about murder, and there are degrees inbetween. The Republican agenda is so desperate that they must use terms like, "...caught lying during a public statement about something very specific." Hell, why not come out and say he lied about getting a BJ from an intern? I can help you with that, it's because it doesn't carry the same ring as saying, "Clinton lied about something very specific in from of Congress." Is anyone fooled by the ambiguity? Wouldn't the next question be to ask what he lied about? Well, er, uh, cough, it was something about a woman I think, cough......
What do you think of the way the Iran-Contra matter was handled? Is it better to get an idiot go forward with a sudden bout of amnesia? And that was about something that mattered. Again, when it comes to lying the substance of the lie is very relevant. If you r wife lied about what she paid for a dress, versus something about an insurance policy you were unaware of or ger wherabouts for a long period of time, these are different. If you are going to tell me you don't lie to your wife/GF, employer, etc, then you are certainly full of shit. Never call in sick when you're not? If it's paid sick time then you are also stealing. Get off your pulpit.
As for the substance, we don't have the legal standing or even any justifyable standing whatsoever to care about where Clinton sticks his cock. His wife does, but not anyone else.
I dont care about his sexual relations with others, but I care about his candor while handling it.
Truth is that the righties can't list any other derogatory actions of 8 of the most successful years in US and world history, so they're relegated to worry about the status of his pecker and make him accountable for the whereabouts of his seamen. Economy = great. Wars = virtually no military action/deaths. Jobs = highly up. Wages = up. Discontent = little. Stock market = record highs. Annual budget deficit = gone and surplus for the forst time in 40 years. These were the glory days of the US and the Repubs that made millions/billions can do nothing but look for insignificant BS to whine about.
Please, please, please post substantive things that CLinton did or that occurred during the Clinton years and establish why CLinton was disastrous for the country. Then go to the Bush page and answer the list of Bush fuck-ups...... won't happen, but the rhetoric will go on, and on, and on...................
Hold the phone. If you don't care about his sexual relations with others, why would the answer to a question that you don't care about matter? If it shouldn't have been asked in the first place? That's one thing that I marvel at the Clinton haters, is that they'll list off a litany of the nasty things William Jeff did with his cock to the fairer sex as being the reason why we should love Dubya, but when the light gets shone on the back seats and alleyways of the Right - well, then it's not the sexual relations that matter, it's how you talk about it.zonyl wrote: I dont care about his sexual relations with others, but I care about his candor while handling it.
-
DiggityBiggity
-
Dirty Sanchez
- Posts: 490
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:02 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
Since whatever Clinton did is in the past and our country is still here, what does it matter what he did? :scratch: We can't change the past and there is no use crying over spilt milk.
Last edited by Dirty Sanchez on Thu Oct 06, 2005 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I treat others as they treat me
-
Lex
-
DiggityBiggity
EBSB52 wrote:zonyl wrote:The big misdeed that will always remain in my mind: Clinton was caught lying during a public statement about something very specific. Therefore I can, without a doubt, not trust him at all. I dont care about his sexual relations with others, but I care about his candor while handling it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po ... 081898.htm
Another pres that comes to mind as well: "I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue."
--
Does GW lie? Probably. Can I decisively prove it first hand? No.
I love this Republican response to CLinton lying about getting a BJ. They are very careful to only refer to the act of lying and not what was lied about. The word, "SUBSTANTIVE" needs to come into play here. A lie about shoplifing is not the same as a lie about murder, and there are degrees inbetween. The Republican agenda is so desperate that they must use terms like, "...caught lying during a public statement about something very specific." Hell, why not come out and say he lied about getting a BJ from an intern? I can help you with that, it's because it doesn't carry the same ring as saying, "Clinton lied about something very specific in from of Congress." Is anyone fooled by the ambiguity? Wouldn't the next question be to ask what he lied about? Well, er, uh, cough, it was something about a woman I think, cough......
What do you think of the way the Iran-Contra matter was handled? Is it better to get an idiot go forward with a sudden bout of amnesia? And that was about something that mattered. Again, when it comes to lying the substance of the lie is very relevant. If you r wife lied about what she paid for a dress, versus something about an insurance policy you were unaware of or ger wherabouts for a long period of time, these are different. If you are going to tell me you don't lie to your wife/GF, employer, etc, then you are certainly full of shit. Never call in sick when you're not? If it's paid sick time then you are also stealing. Get off your pulpit.
- Substantive? What is the most prominent thing you will hear about Clinton when asked about him? It is a rare thing for me (personally) to see on record a public statement made by a president about something so specific that is later found and admitted to lying about. It is even rarer for a politician to corner themselves by answering a difficult question directly. Dealing with difficult questions to me seems a fundamental skill that is required of a good politician, one that is obviously lacking in his character.
- Simple: Someone lies to me, I cannot trust them. My wife / GF / whatever is not relevant as levels of trust are subjective to the individual. Call me what you want (and do).
- My ambiguity was an attempt to keep it G rated, not because of trying to insult you or anyone else's intelligence. (you have this tendency to reflect on a lot of my comments as attacks on people's capacity to read through them, please dont)
- I didnt claim support of asking the question about his personal life, I claim he answered it without skill.
- I dont believe you can define any president by the events happening during their term, but believe you can define them by character exposed while in and out of office. Clinton shows a fundamental lack of an attribute that makes a great leader, IMO.