Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×


Senior Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BeAChooser

  1. Sorry, but the Forum Guidelines (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules ) clearly state that what you've just tried to do is against the Code of Conduct that you agreed to when you registered. It states: This thread is not about what Reagan or Bush did or didn't do (according to you). If you want to start a thread on them go ahead. Otherwise you are violating the Code of Conduct THAT YOU SIGNED. This thread is about what PBS is going to report tonight and tomorrow night as Bill Clinton's legacy. I maintain it will be a whitewash since it doesn't appear they will cover most or perhaps any of the topics I listed in an accurate and honest manner. Most apparently won't be mentioned at all. Whitewash. Now do you have anything at all to contest the charges I've made against Clinton? Because otherwise I'm going to simply ignore you.
  2. I guess you failed to read the Code of Conduct (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules ) you signed when you registered. Calling me a imbecile and a moron clearly violate that code. Not that I expect moderators at a liberal forum will do a thing about that. Also, I read the PBS website description of the contents of documentary before posting this. As I've noted, there is no mention that I can find of ANY scandal other than the Lewinsky scandal. And there are plenty of glowing descriptions of the Clinton Presidency. I think if any of these topics were going to be honestly presented in the documentary, they would have been mentioned in the summary. In fact, a whole chapter should have been devoted to Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate. They were that important. Yet another clear violation of the agreed to Code Of Conduct. I wonder when the moderators of this forum will take notice?
  3. No he didn't. Democrats are always claiming that Clinton achieved a surplus. He did not. Treasury Department data clearly shows the national debt going up each and every year of Clinton's term. This articles shows what you get from going to the Treasury website and computing it: http://biggovernment.com/jdunetz/2011/10/03/time-for-some-truth-bill-clinton-never-balanced-a-budget-and-never-ran-a-surplus/ ). The LOWEST year of deficit was in FY2000 and it was still $18 billion dollars. Now how can there have been a surplus when the Treasury Department is telling us the national debt went up every single year? What Clinton did was pay down the public debt, NOT the national debt and there's a difference. He paid down the public debt by borrowing money in the form of intergovernmental holdings ... which is included in the national debt. In essence, he hid the problem. Clinton just shuffled money (much like he shuffled the definition of "is") to hide the still growing national debt and make himself look good. That was so important to him that at one point he claimed he'd achieved a surplus of $230 billion (see http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/ ) when Treasury Department data clearly shows there was still an $18 billion dollar deficit that year. And the democrat-friendly mainstream media never called him on the lie. And by the way, as to the reduction in the deficit during Clinton's term, how do you think that came about? You will note that the deficit in FY1994 and FY1995 was $281 billion dollars. The deficit only began to fall in FY1996 and thereafter. Now what was different about the later years from the first two? Well to begin with, Republicans took control of Congress away from the Democrats in January 1995. So FY1996 was the first year based on Republican budgeting. And balancing the budget was the heart of Republican fiscal policy during that time. Remember the government shutdown in late 1995? That was about balancing the budget and in the end President Clinton folded. Republicans retained control of Congress, even if by a slim margin, until after Clinton left office, which explains why the deficit continued to fall during Clinton's term. Clinton just went along for the ride because he was always good at going whichever way the wind seemed to be blowing at the time (if you know what I mean).
  4. Would you like to discuss the death of Vince Foster? Because the PBS website description of tonight's program (all the links at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/introduction/clinton/ ) only calls it a suicide and gives no indication there was a controversy. Nor is there any mention of any of the other scandals I listed, other than the Lewinsky scandal, and I really doubt they will mention the complaints about Ken Starr sabotaging his own investigation by telling Bill about the blue dress before questioning him. No, what PBS has tried to do is the same thing the media did throughout the Clinton years ... give the public the idea that Clinton's transgressions were just about sex with an intern. Go ahead ... go to their website and point out to me where anything is said about Chinagate? CampaignFinancegate? Or Filegate? Emailgate? Go to the timeline of his presidency on that website (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/timeline/clinton/) or the description of his legacy (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/clinton-legacy/ ). You will find no mention of those important topics. No mention of the Juanita Broaddrick allegation. No mention of the death of Ron Brown and the allegations surrounding his death (connected to Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate). Would you care to discuss them? I would love to discuss them. Shall we talk about what the military pathologists said? Shall we talk about what Clinton's administration did to those military pathologists? I bet that's not mentioned in the show tonight. Or how about we talk about what David Schippers, the House Manager during the impeachment, said about the Clinton Presidency? I bet that's one person PBS failed to interview for their whitewash.
  5. Go ahead, offer a specific example of one topic on that list that was "debunked". And provide the facts or a link to whatever you think debunked it. Don't hide behind vagueness because that only makes you look foolish. As I said, I'm more than willing to debate any one of those topics with the likes of you. But debate implies you presents facts and present facts ... and may the best facts win. For example, would you like to discuss Chinagate and CampaignFinancegate? Those are major scandals that I doubt PBS will properly cover. How about we discuss the Cox Report or the LaBella memo? Or Riadygate and what it showed? Then we can discuss how what Clinton did in those two scandals is what now has us being militarily challenged by the Communist Chinese. Or we could discuss the death of Ron Brown next, since his death appears linked to the two scandals. Or perhaps you'd be more willing to discuss the death of Vince Foster and the coverup that clearly followed? Would you be willing to discuss even one specific aspect of the allegations? Say, the so-called "suicide note"? Or we can debate Filegate if you're willing? How about it? Shall we discuss who hired Craig Livingstone? And where the FBI files actually were after Ken Starr claimed they'd been returned to the FBI? And what Clinton's staff was busy doing with those files? Let's talk about what Jerome M. Zeifman had to say about Clinton. Recall that he was a lifelong Democrat and Chief Counsel of the House Judiciary Committee at the time of Nixon's impeachment inquiry (he played a key role in drafting the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon). You wouldn't disagree with his views about Bill Clinton, now would you? Or how about we discuss David Schippers views, another lifelong Democrat … one who even voted for Bill Clinton twice? You want to claim that what he has said was debunked? Or maybe you'd prefer to discuss the DOZENS of rape and sexual assault allegations? Is that a topic that PBS is going to accurately cover? I rather doubt it, but you and I could discuss it. You think it's all been debunked then let's start with Broaddrick. Just pick a topic. Don't be shy. Let's get down to details and see who really is puffing smoke here.
  6. PBS will begin showing a 2 part series on Bill Clinton tonight, a liberal icon. The only question is how big a whitewash it will be. That will depend on whether the following topics are properly and fairly covered … but I suspect most will be ignored: - his corrupting the election system (CampaignFinancegate) - his selling out America to potential foreign enemies for campaign contributions (Chinagate) - his illegally acquiring blackmail material on political opponents (Filegate) - his attempts to hide the misdeeds (Emailgate, etc) - his sexual assaults (including the rape of Juanita Broaddrick) - sexual harassment (of many women, including Monica) - Monicagate (how Ken Starr used this scandal to help Clinton escape justice) - the incriminating circumstances in Vince Foster's death (murder) - the incriminating circumstances in Ron Brown's death (murder) - Travelgate - Pardongate - perjury (actually, he lied to virtually everyone he could possibly lie to) - obstruction of justice (too many examples to list) - blackmail - intimidation of witnesses - evidence tampering - witness tampering - bribery - abuse of the IRS - abuse of the military - abuse of the FBI - abuse of the DOJ - violation of drug laws - national security violations - his role in the collapse of the mortgage market - his role in 9/11 occuring - who really was responsible for balancing the budget in the 90s - who really was responsible for the economic boom in the 90s And I would happy to discuss ANY of those topics on this thread.
  7. No, the people who still support Obama are the problem.
  • Create New...