posted on February 11, 2001 02:42:24 PM new
bottom line Bush is President Gore ain't and you all are going to have to live with it for 8 years what goes around comes around it is now your turn you can say what you want, when you want but Bush is Persident and what ever you say will not make it so.
I personally would like to thank Mr Clinton for his 8 years of service if it wan't for him we would still have a democratic congress and my state does not have 1 single Democrat in any seat of power at the State Level - not one nada, nil and we had quite a few when Mr clinton took over 8 years ago - Democrats lost so bad in 1994 that they almost got decertified so I for one thank you Mr. president for the past 8 years - it is truly appreciated
posted on February 11, 2001 02:45:09 PM new
It must be a very serious embarrassment to have voted for a president who can't be defended other than by pointing fingers at a previous president. Seems mighty unpatriotic to me.
Who cares about this Rich guy? More power to him. Why haven't any of these "can't GET OVER IT" Clinton detractors brought up the FACT that this guy Rich's wife contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library?
Aside from being not guilty on most of the counts he's accused of, and aside that the charges themselves would generally be civil matters, not criminal, at least Clinton has taken an act which may one day result in the guy's return to this country to be accountable for any tax obligation he may have. Did anyone think that any blood would ever come from that turnip while he was safely ensconsed out of the country?
How does everyone feel about the fact that the area of National park which contains the statue of liberty is named "Clinton Park"?
posted on February 11, 2001 03:05:09 PM new
Clinton Park isn't off topic??? Just kidding.........
But since you brought it up....The things 'we won't get over' are current news. Seems to be a long list of things he's (& she's) done recently that's are, as of today, being questioned. Not only brought up by the posters here, but by both Republicans and Democrats in the House of Reps and the Senate.
Matter of fact, just today on Fox News they've had people who are using the word impeachment.
But back to the library. Yes, it's been reported that the ex-Mrs. Rich donated approx. $400,000.00, as she is free to do. Those funds are only supposed to be used for matters that involve the library though. Don't believe they are to be used to pay for part of the office suites, etc. Least that's what's being said on the news.
The way I understand it is, that is why the donors and the amounts they give don't have to be reported. It is for the personal use of the ex-president, but only for the library. Otherwise, I understand, when money is donated then it has to be reported as a political donation and we all get to see the list of political contributors.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 11, 2001 03:14 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 11, 2001 03:20 PM ]
posted on February 11, 2001 03:09:43 PM new
Just a little perspective from the scene of the crime: New York.
I don't know how the entire country is taking all this, but if here it's reached a point where the conservative papers (NY Post) and liberal papers (NY Daily News) are equally disgusted, he's finally pushed the envelope. Only Clinton could steal thunder from a sitting president with new scandals of his own.
posted on February 11, 2001 03:18:24 PM new
Linda_K and mybiddness,
Isn't it some kind of logical fallacy when irrelevant topics are brought into
an argument...I've forgotten what it is called.
For example, the topic here was, the fact that George Bush was considering a
$1 billion budget cut in the Justice Department to help finance his
tax cut for the wealthy.
This cut would affect the FBI, DEA, and local police.
Now, my question is how the following topics are relevant to this problem.
1. Cost of Clinton's office
2. Clinton's personal debt
3. Mark Rich
4. White House Furniture
Helen
Edited to address the question to the posters
of this info.
posted on February 11, 2001 03:23:28 PM new"Aside from being not guilty on most of the counts he's accused of, and aside that the charges themselves would generally be civil matters, not criminal, at least...."
WRONG!
How did you determine the man is not guilty when there has not been a trial?
Tax evasion (IS) criminal. The Feds do not send you on an all expense paid trip to Disney Land if convicted.
Selling oil to Iran was a violation of certain Federal CRIMINAL Codes.
posted on February 11, 2001 03:34:00 PM newBut then go to Clinton's willingness to take from his library to help defray the cost of his office...
From what I've heard on the tv news today, he can't legally take funds from that to use for other purposes. Donations to that purpose are to only be used for the library, hence the privacy issue for it's donators.
Think no one has brought it up as while Clinton proposed he would do that, he hasn't, yet, tried to do so.
posted on February 11, 2001 03:35:14 PM new1. Cost of Clinton's office 2. Clinton's personal debt 3. Mark Rich 4. White House Furniture
All relevant.
All have a direct impact upon tax money, even Clinton's personal debts. Why do you think he was stealing government property? He intended to sell the stuff on eBay to pay off his personal debts.
PS: The FBI, DEA, and local police are just a few of the numerous agencies that are part of the budget. Not to mention the BS programs.
IMO, his "willingness" to help fund the office space could be more accurately described as "he finally caved in" to the pressure.
BTW, the poll that Linda_K and I both referred to is referring to George W not George Senior.
It must be a very serious embarrassment to have voted for a president who can't be defended other than by pointing fingers at a previous president. Seems mighty unpatriotic to me.
OTOH, it must be a very serious embarassment to have to pretend that the indefensible conduct shown by Clinton is somehow defensible or unimportant.
IMO, pointing out the glaring misconduct of the former President offers an interesting contrast. Afterall, we have a current situation of gross misconduct (again) by Clinton but instead of concerning ourselves with that we're supposed to be worried about Bush asking departments to look for ways they can save money. GASP!!!! What an idiot he is. Doesn't he know he's supposed to just throw money at the problems and they'll go away....
Helen I wasn't aware that Bush had a tax cut plan for the wealthy. Seems to me that it's much broader than that. Or does it just bother you that the wealthy aren't being excluded from the plan?
posted on February 11, 2001 03:55:01 PM new
Urinating in the ocean vs. raising the level is not the primary concern. The concern should be, whom is doing the urinating?
Take Clinton and his ilk for example. If he and his kind urinate in the ocean, you will have an environmental hazard on your hands, similar to the Ebola virus.
posted on February 11, 2001 04:00:37 PM new
Linda_k,
LOL! No one brought it up ....why?
Recognise these words?
[i]LIBRARY FUNDS DIVERTED FOR RENT
Begin quote/ A SUBSIDY SOUGHT FOR CLINTON OFFICE
The unprecedented $300,000-a-year subsidy former President Bill Clinton has offered to help rent a penthouse office on fashionable 57th Street in New York City will come from tax-exempt donations intended to build and endow his presidential library in Little Rock.
The unique arrangement, announced to end criticism of renting luxury offices that cost more than those of all other living former presidents combined,was not described to potential donors of the William J. Clinton Presidential Foundation./end quote/
So that *could* be the $900,000. minus the $300,000.00 = the $600,000.00 figure (per year). We'll know when the rents due.
and sgtmike,
How did you determine the man is not guilty when there has not been a trial?
LOL! I thought everyone was not guilty until proven otherwise at trial?
posted on February 11, 2001 04:05:25 PM new
I know krs, however your sentence structure insinuated the slime-ball was found not guilty. And that is exactly what you meant.
posted on February 11, 2001 04:12:21 PM new
"I speak from years of experience and can attest; many law enforcement agencies of (all) levels are some of the worse offenders for misusing taxpayers' money. If you were to (really) know about the unnecessary police toys, short-lived programs, and redirected use you pay for, you might whistle a different tune. "
Since this thread seems to be pretty much a free-for-all anyway and I've survived the logic to this point, my personal relevation came early on and I can't seem to get the tune out of mind.
I honestly didn't realize, Mike, how many of the worst offenders in misusing government money at all levels worked in law enforcement. I've known several law enforcement officers over the years and they had certainly pulled the wool over my eyes. But with your experience with what must be either the gross incompetence or derelection of so many, I now view law enforcement in a completely different light. Can you believe that we are actually paying their salaries? Doesn't it just make you ill to have to work with those incompetent profligates? Don't you ever just want to resign in disgust?
posted on February 11, 2001 04:16:02 PM new
Putting words in my mouth and now thoughts in my head?
I insinuated no such thing, and meant no such thing.
Now, do I take it that past perfidy is the subject today? It would seem so with all of the mudslinging performed by these Clinton haters. Kinda' reminds me of dogs trying to piss on the wheel of a passing bus---hard to hit the target.
Nevertheless, because it is the choice of the forum to pretend to an innocence which does not exist in dear dear dumbya, consider these investigative news results if you'd like to have exposure to the training ground of the biggest tax cheat and public money waster ever to come down the pike:
posted on February 11, 2001 04:21:00 PM new
Good points,Dan. It's a wonder to me that the seemingly nice guys that I shoot with could be party to such things.
posted on February 11, 2001 04:21:31 PM new
Well, this dead dog has been beaten to the thickness of a gnat hair. There is no doubt who won this debate.
posted on February 11, 2001 04:23:48 PM new
Yup, no more contributions to police fund-raisers I guess. And I thought so many were really decent people.
Just kidding.........