Jump to content
BeAChooser

The P B S Whitewash Of Clinton's Legacy

Recommended Posts

And his popularity STILL has INCREASED. How funny is that?

 

Another huge slapdown of conservative's motivations.

 

 

 

 

We understand that you're as dumb as a rock.

 

And your typical "brilliance" shines through.

 

You do realize you're the biggest waste of breath on this forum right? I've never seen you post a single intelligent thing where as someone like Naughty or Annoyed come across as far more complex, interesting individuals. They aren't talking-point hounds like you and are actually worth engaging.

 

In fact, you're not much better than a zombie. You haven't exhibited even remote signs of life within that brain of yours. A terrible waste.

Edited by Kelliak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PBS is the preferred news source for people with college educations and beyond. It's not surprising that so many lowly cons find fault with it.

 

You mistake college education with intelligence. The ability to sit in a classroom for indoctrination doesn't make one intelligent it makes them a useful tool, thus idiot, mainly for the liebral and the democrooks.

 

So many of today's so called college educated people who have nothing better than a LA degree in art or underwater fire prevention are just expensive people who are nothing better than HS educated a few decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, yes, liberal Democrats were enraged that Reagan fought our enemies and won the Cold War, while they fought against him, and frequently on behalf of our enemies, as they did on behalf of the Communist Sandinistas.

 

Why is this sped STILL talking about Reagan? Probably b/c the current batch of the 3 Stooges running for the GOP nomination is hard for even cons to discuss.

 

Uh, maybe because he was the greatest president of the 20th Century?

 

Maybe because unlike the Marxist-in-Chief, Reagan's economic policies worked? More jobs were created in one good month under Reagan than will be created this entire, snicker, "good" year under Barry.

 

Duuuh.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Clinton left office he left this country with a huge surplus. There is no denying this fact even with hard core righties.

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And (Clinton's) popularity STILL has INCREASED. How funny is that?

 

Another huge slapdown of conservative's motivations.

 

What do Clinton's felonies,impeachable acts and deep corruption have to do with his supposed popularity?

 

Al Capone was superficially popular in his era. So?

 

When Clinton left office he left this country with a huge surplus. There is no denying this fact even with hard core righties.

 

Translated into honest English: Clinton left collapsing revenues as the country fell into a recession.

 

And you'll lie to the end of the Earth to deny that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinturd a "rock star"? :lol:

He was IMPEACHED

 

Yep - UNSUCCESSFULLY. In other words, the impeachment couldn't be substantiated.

 

and disbarred you star-struck dope.

 

He wasn't disbarred. Don't let the facts hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

As to his popularity abroad....well, he's popular in china alright...he gave them our missle telemetry secrets for a couple million in campaign funds. If it were up to me I'd set his ass in the electric-chair and turn the dial up to FRY. :huh:

 

"WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!"

 

LOLOL.

Edited by Isabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This imbecile hasn't even seen teh documentary and he's already calling it a "whitewash."

 

Why do morons like to advertise that they are morons?

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.

 

Here's one lobotomy patient whose head has exploded so many times ( and put back together again) over the successes of the Clinton Administration that it reveals just why his mental deficiencies are what they are.

Yet another clear violation of the agreed to Code Of Conduct. I wonder when the moderators of this forum will take notice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

That code isn't enforced. We have almost unlimited freedom of speech.

 

Great points, you are correct, but that lying troll will deny the time of day, as will many other liberal-left liars.

 

A forum like this is an excellent, excellent place to see character on display, or lack of it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Measured Objectively - The Most Corrupt Presidency In US History??

 

... snip ...

 

The Bush and Reagan Crime Syndicate

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:

 

(2) Misdirection. Do not change the subject of a thread or post or otherwise misdirect a political chat discussion.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - UNSUCCESSFULLY. In other woreds, the impeachment couldn't be substantiated.

 

Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

Edited by neue regel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

iF A DEMOCRAT SQUANDERED A $127 BILLION surplus, the repukes would talk about it night and day for decades.

 

Since it was a republican,,,,they never even mention it.

I'm quite willing to talk about it. That never happened. And I proved it above.

 

In fact, the data shows that Bush inherited a $133 billion dollar deficit from Clinton since FY2001 was based on Clinton's budget, not Bush's.

 

Now the question is will you try to claim that the Treasury Department's own data is wrong? Or that the National Debt is the same as Public Debt? Make me laugh, liberal.

 

99% of the accusations hurled at Clinton was just made up crap and as phoney as the "birther" schitt.

See post #33 and apply it to yourself.

 

PBS is one of the most accurate purveyors of news in the world and many people's only source of news BY CHOICE.

Will you discuss the details or will you hide? You claim that the list of items I've mentioned have been debunked over and over. My offer stands. Pick one and let's discuss it and see who really is spewing garbage here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clinton was impeached but not removed from office.

That's right - unsuccessfully. Impeachment means to accuse - that's all. It says absolutely nothing about the validity of the accusation.

Edited by Isabel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right - unsuccessfully. Impeachment means to accuse - that's all. It says absolutely nothing about the validity of the accusation.

 

You are right that impeachment is an accusation. Dennis Kucinich brought articles of impeachment against Bush, he just didn't get enough to go along with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get finished [adult material deleted] post links to all your false charges. Even post propaganda from Faux News.

 

After you have [adult material deleted] explain Clinton's policies, such as a balanced budget, more pay for cops and smaller government and explain who those are liberal.

 

After you did that you can go back to [adult material deleted].

 

Don't think about the cancer cells growing inside you. The cancer cells in your mind are pink elephants on roller skates. You can try but you can't remove that image from your brain. On every level it is bringing you one step closer to an agonizing death. The only way you can stop it now is by admitting you are a liar and a child molester.

Surely the moderators of this forum are aware of the way you *debate*. You clearly violated the Forum's Rules of Conduct, that they made you agree to when you registered on this forum. Those rules state (http://liberalforum.org/liberalforum/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules ) that you will:

 

B. Be Civil. Don't use language that lowers the tone from that you would see on a television show (i.e., "Crossfire" or "Politically Incorrect"). Attacking your opponent personally is not appropriate. … snip ...

 

... snip ...

 

(2) Adult Material. Adult material is strictly prohibited.

 

… snip …

 

C. Be Sincere. Don't post just to get people riled up. Don't disrupt the purpose of the political chat room forum, which is to foster genuine, and where possible, constructive dialogue between people of liberal and conservative viewpoints.

Now the question is whether the moderators of this forum were serious when they wrote those rule of conduct or whether the rules are just a joke?

 

If I were a moderator, you'd be given a warning noting specifically where and how you violated the Rules of Conduct. And if you persisted in violating those aspects of the rules you'd be gone. You see, I'm here to do exactly what the Rules state … engage in "genuine, and where possible, constructive dialogue between people of liberal and conservative viewpoints." That's why you will find my posts filled with facts that I'm more than willing to back up with credible sources. I've made the offer in this thread to discuss ANY of the topics I listed in the OP. So far not one liberal has responded to that challenge by picking a specific assertion that they think is false. If you think I'm wrong about a specific topic then state what you think is true instead. For example, if you agree with PBS that Vince Foster committed suicide and there are no questions worthy of being mentioned about that in a documentary about Clinton, then just say so. And then I'll be quite happy to prove, with sound logic and sourced facts, that you are completely wrong. At which point you can either admit you were wrong ... or look foolish.

 

Or do you wish to continue violating the Rules Of Conduct that you agreed to follow as your method of debating the OP's topic? Because that says volumes about Clinton-admiring liberals, too. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Here's the moderator in charge, sparky:

 

 

What rules are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Wonder how the republicans can claim to have dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget when the charts show deficits dropping through all his term? Nothing changed when republicans took control of congress. And what do you suppose happened to their deficit reducing magic dust when Clinton left office? One would think if the republicans balanced the budget fighting Clinton, having a president of their party would make it much easier. I suppose they must have used up all their balancing budget dust on Clinton and had none left for Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how the republicans can claim to have dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget when the charts show deficits dropping through all his term? Nothing changed when republicans took control of congress. And what do you suppose happened to their deficit reducing magic dust when Clinton left office? One would think if the republicans balanced the budget fighting Clinton, having a president of their party would make it much easier. I suppose they must have used up all their balancing budget dust on Clinton and had none left for Bush.

 

It's called lying. For many conservatives, this has become reflexive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its still on , this should be shown in history classes . on national TV .

 

Hilary was a fox .

Edited by lefty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how the republicans can claim to have dragged Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget when the charts show deficits dropping through all his term? Nothing changed when republicans took control of congress. And what do you suppose happened to their deficit reducing magic dust when Clinton left office? One would think if the republicans balanced the budget fighting Clinton, having a president of their party would make it much easier. I suppose they must have used up all their balancing budget dust on Clinton and had none left for Bush.

 

You would agree that the tech bubble which was basically an illusion of wealth on paper, as well as the Wall Street cooked books that rocked the financial sector...and of course 9/11...all conspired to rock the economy well off the axis that could have possibly produced balanced budgets, let alone surpluses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's called lying. For many conservatives, this has become reflexive.

 

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?

 

Reagan was a complete FOOL and a complete FAILURE. Only the myth in the minds of lemmings survives.
:lol:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would agree that the tech bubble which was basically an illusion of wealth on paper, as well as the Wall Street cooked books that rocked the financial sector...and of course 9/11...all conspired to rock the economy well off the axis that could have possibly produced balanced budgets, let alone surpluses?

 

Most of the serial bubbles of the last 30 years were produced by artificially low interest rates, which convinced consumers to buy much that they could not afford coupled with tax cuts to investors who then had an artificial reason to cook up some new scheme to invest in to bilk those consumers out of their cheap credit dollars. That is all classic, conservative, supply side economics that engorges the already engorged and chains consumers to their long term debt. In the end, this strategy destroys whole economies, but the sugar buzz feels great while it's buzzing.

 

For his part, Bill Clinton did well in the first part of his presidency to restore sanity to the wreckage left behind by Reagan / Bush. But, once he lost congress in 1994, the heavy speculation kicked in again in high gear. What Clinton did that was questionable was to then settle on a strategy of mitigating the extremism of the supply side fanaticism by taking credit for the bubble's positive effects while undermining the ability of the SSE inspired speculators to engage fully in their mania. So, to some degree, Bill Clinton can be accused of not doing all he could to resist the speculators. Joseph Stiglitz criticizes him for this - rightly from an economic standpoint. From a political standpoint, it may have been his only real option to stem the tide of the conservative SSE financial mania.

 

At any rate, when the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush as president, there no longer remained any effective block to Supply Side speculative mania until the world's financial system collapsed in September, 2008. The Democrats regained congress in 2006, but had no ability to get any financial legislation past Bush's veto pen.

 

Could a sane, honest person hold the following opinion?

 

:lol:

 

You tell me...

 

 

RichClem calls Ronald Reagan a FOOL (and a LIAR)

 

Well, if you feel that they have nothing to fear from a limited missile defense, how about giving them the blueprints and technology for ours? I'm sure that Russia and China would also appreciate missile defense against <i>rogue-state ICBMs</i> too. Giving or selling them our anti-missile technology would demonstrate our bona fides, and would take away Russia's and China's justification for building more ICBMs to counter our defenses. What's that you say? I didn't think so.

 

 

Uh, you're kidding, right? We're going to share our secrets and high tech with our rivals, our potential enemies?

 

No, only a fool would do that. We would offer protection to them from attack by rogue states, as Bush did.

 

 

Gee, clem! You just called your hero - Ronald Reagan - a FOOL!

 

link: Reagan wanted to share SDI with Soviets

 

 

 

Would Reagan really have shared important SDI technology with the Soviets? If they thought so, they'd have asked, duuuuuh!

 

Holy cow, you'll tell any lie, no matter how freaking obvious. :blink:

 

 

So now, you're second-guessing Reagan? LOL LOL LOL!!!

 

I guess nothing he ever said means a damned thing unless richclem says Reagan was telling the truth! LOL LOL LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the serial bubbles of the last 30 years were produced by artificially low interest rates, which convinced consumers to buy much that they could not afford coupled with tax cuts to investors who then had an artificial reason to cook up some new scheme to invest in to bilk those consumers out of their cheap credit dollars. That is all classic, conservative, supply side economics that engorges the already engorged and chains consumers to their long term debt. In the end, this strategy destroys whole economies, but the sugar buzz feels great while it's buzzing.

 

For his part, Bill Clinton did well in the first part of his presidency to restore sanity to the wreckage left behind by Reagan / Bush. But, once he lost congress in 1994, the heavy speculation kicked in again in high gear. What Clinton did that was questionable was to then settle on a strategy of mitigating the extremism of the supply side fanaticism by taking credit for the bubble's positive effects while undermining the ability of the SSE inspired speculators to engage fully in their mania. So, to some degree, Bill Clinton can be accused of not doing all he could to resist the speculators. Joseph Stiglitz criticizes him for this - rightly from an economic standpoint. From a political standpoint, it may have been his only real option to stem the tide of the conservative SSE financial mania.

 

At any rate, when the Supreme Court installed George W. Bush as president, there no longer remained any effective block to Supply Side speculative mania until the world's financial system collapsed in September, 2008. The Democrats regained congress in 2006, but had no ability to get any financial legislation past Bush's veto pen.

 

I agree with much of what you've written but allow me to add that Clinton stoked the fires when he signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall. Had that firewall remained in place, we quite possibly could have avoided the extent of the financial disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with much of what you've written but allow me to add that Clinton stoked the fires when he signed the repeal of Glass-Stegall. Had that firewall remained in place, we quite possibly could have avoided the extent of the financial disaster.

 

I agree with you, neue. In my estimation, that was Clinton's worst decision in his presidency. I was shocked when he supported it and remain disappointed with him for that to this day.

 

Clinton - after the congressional defeat of 1994 - governed too conservatively - WITH conservatives, consistent with what I described above. But, remember, the whole country voted to evacuate congress of Democrats and install very conservative republicans. Clinton couldn't and wouldn't repeal Glass-Steagall alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you, neue. In my estimation, that was Clinton's worst decision in his presidency. I was shocked when he supported it and remain disappointed with him for that to this day.

 

Clinton - after the congressional defeat of 1994 - governed too conservatively - WITH conservatives, consistent with what I described above. But, remember, the whole country voted to evacuate congress of Democrats and install very conservative republicans. Clinton couldn't and wouldn't repeal Glass-Steagall alone.

 

We're talking about a double edged sword. He governed very effectively with Newt. It wasn't perfect and not altogether stable but pretty effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×