Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

djberg96 (2603)

djberg96
  (email not shown publicly)

Journal of djberg96 (2603)

Thursday June 24, 2004
06:50 PM

Clinton Fried Rice

[ #19479 ]
So, Bill Clinton has a book out. Hooray for Bill. We could go on ad nauseum about the Lewinsky affair. Instead, maybe you should plug the words "Clinton", "China", and "Riady" into your search engine and actually learn why Bill Clinton was the most corrupt president in our nation's history. It makes the Cheney-Halliburton issue look pathetic in comparison. Not that our "unbiased media" ever bothered to cover this connection much.

As some of you know, I used to work at Fort Meade. By 1999, I had met several folks who believed that Billy Boy had probably compromised national security for the sake of campaign contributions.

I remember there was some talk in late '99 about Bill running for a 3rd term as President. If he had tried, I doubt he would have survived it.


List all Journal entries
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Clinton Fried Rice 25 Comments More | Login | Reply /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ...Bill Clinton was the most corrupt president in our nation's history

    I'd say, not even close. Not with folks like Buchanan, Garfield, Arthur, and everyone's favorite whipping boy, Nixon.

    • They may have have pocketed money and made illegal deals (or, had agents break into the DNC), but none of them compromised national security in the process, to my knowledge.

      Oh, and while I'm thinking of it, plug in "clinton", "department of education" and "audit" into Google and see what you come up with.

      • Well, yes, but to a large extent, many of them didn't have national security to compromise. :-)
        • Nixon is a different case. What he did didn't significantly harm the country in terms of national security; he didn't steal anything; he didn't make us less safe or less prosperous or any of that. His only crime was making us have a lot less faith in the Presidency. In some ways, what he did was not that bad at all, and in other ways, it is far worse than what the others have done.
            • For nastiness about Nixon, consider the atrocities in SE blah blah blah

              Translation: "I hate American government in every form."
                • The "blah blah" is all factual.

                  It's really not. "Atrocities" is an opinion, as is the amount of blame due to Nixon over what happened. And the attempted linking of the death of an activist to Nixon is telling of your lack of objectivity and the presence of overwhelming bias.

                  Why the unfriendly rhetoric?

                  You want to destroy through that which I and many of my countrymen are willing to kill and die for. Of course I am hostile to those ideas.
                    • And as to the "kill and die for" -- would you really kill to protect someone else's property? If some squatters are living in a vacant office, are they fair game?

                      I am talking about preservation of the nation under the Consitution. I don't know what you're talking about.
  • I don't know much about Clinton, so I won't say anything about that. Certainly
    my default reaction is suspicion of anyone in any sort of position of authority.
    Of course, that typically applies to his detractors as much as to him.

    If you're looking into comparisons, you might also be interested in looking up
    the Carlyle Group. The most egregious bit of that that I've heard about is the
    United Defense pump-and-dump.

    • "If you're looking into comparisons, you might also be interested in looking up the Carlyle Group."

      Blech - more sickening corruption. This is why I'm voting for Nader this year. It's not even about Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative any more. It's about corporate vs non-corporate.

      Maybe we need a revolution.

      • > Blech - more sickening corruption. This is why I'm voting for Nader this year.
        > It's not even about Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative any more.
        > It's about corporate vs non-corporate.

        Unfortunately, given the structure of our society (a social-democratic
        capitalist republic), voting for self-proclaimed reformers is typically of
        limited utility. The problem is with the social structure, not just with the
        individuals in charge. Though it does appear to me that current batch of people
        in
        • We need a *particular type* of revolution. I think the organizing principle of society should be worker control.

          The problem is that less than 1 percent of the populace would agree with you about that. I'd be surprised if you could even get 1 percent of people on this site to agree with you. We fought major wars to defeat communism, and we're still, as a people, as against it as ever.
          • > The problem is that less than 1 percent of the populace
            > would agree with you about that. I'd be surprised if you
            > could even get 1 percent of people on this site to agree
            > with you. We fought major wars to defeat communism, and
            > we're still, as a people, as against it as ever.

            The Leninist dictatorship-of-the-party is a far cry from
            anarchist societies that people have actually created on
            the ground. I hope you'll take the time to read a bit about
            what the anarchists achieved in Spain [struggle.ws].

            The C
            • I hope you'll take the time to read about how every worker-run nation has failed in short order, unless kept in control by force.

              Mistaking an anarchist for an advocate of state control is a pretty big error. The modern US Republican Party is a lot closer [to communism].

              I hope you say that when you try to convince people of revolution, because it will succeed in nothing but making people realize how wacky your ideas are.
              • Try looking at things along the authoritarian / libertarian
                axis. The current US administration seems very
                authoritarian to me. I imagine you have heard about the
                "confidential" memo in which the Justice Dept. asserted that
                the President has the right to set aside US law during
                wartime?

                Combine that with their plan for never-ending war, and I
                think that's pretty authoritarian. And in the end, not that
                different from the current regime in China.
                • Try looking at things along the authoritarian / libertarian axis.

                  Try imagining that I have long ago moved well beyond such banal exercises.

                  I imagine you have heard about the "confidential" memo in which the Justice Dept. asserted that the President has the right to set aside US law during wartime?

                  Well, he does. He has authority to do whatever he wishes in an emergency situation, including wartime. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. The question is not whether he has the right or authority, which he d
                  • > You see, since the torture first came out, people have
                    > been trying to blame Bush for it.

                    Whereas, you accept the official story?

                        * It was only a single unit that tortured people
                        * That this unit did so of their own accord, without any
                              such order from their superiors
                        * The one time this happened, they took lots of pictures,
                              and these pictures were widely circulated

                    What of the Red Cros
                    • Whereas, you accept the official story?

                      No. I am, instead, being reasonable: due to lack of evidence supporting any explanation in particular, I am withholding judgment.
  • It looks to me that Clinton's biggest "problem" is that he did not hide behind "executive privilege" and tell congress to "bite me" when they asked for stuff. (At least not as effectively as the current guy.)

    He could have learned a thing from the current president in that regard.

    If he had done this... well, I'm sure he would have stacked up much better. ;-)

    I personally believe that both Clinton and Bush (take your pick) are morally corrupt and not fit for "Leadership". The problem gets made even worse wh
    • The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

      I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

      Too damn many people worried about getting re-elected.

      Agreed. This is why I am for term limits.

      While I'm all for democracy (beats all of the options) I think something if serio
      • The problem gets made even worse when you take into consideration that congress is unwilling to be led.

        I don't know what you mean by that. Congress doesn't lead, they are led. They should lead, as they are the most powerful body in the country (don't believe the nonsense about coequal branches of government, it's not true).

        I have become very cynical and often scoff when I hear the terms "president" and "leader(ship)" in the same sentence. Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader"
        • Even so, traditionally the president is considered the "leader" of our government.

          Militarily and diplomatically. Beyond that, traditionally, not so much, until FDR came around. I mean yes, of course he is the "leader," but the Congress controlled the legislative agenda before the 1930s. Now, the President seems to lead it, most of the time.

          They are unwilling to be led.

          I wish that were even more true than it is. They should not be led. They should do what they think is best regardless of what the
          • I agree that congress should not be led. I think they should be responding to the pressure of the people they represent, not the president.

            First, your feelings about "god is coming soon and who gives a damn" are really off the mark. No one in power in DC believes this.

            Yeah... but stuff like [villagevoice.com] this [guardian.co.uk] scares me.

            Second, who cares about the minority? Since when are they supposed to matter? If you can't get enough representation to get your voice to matter, then your voice shouldn't matter.

            Ah... you don't su
            • Yeah... but stuff like this scares me.

              I think most people read way too much into it, similarly to how people read way too much into some things about Clinton.

              Ah... you don't subscribe to the idea of the tyranny of the majority? That is one of the reasons that the senate has the filibuster. Because one man should be able to make a difference.

              To a very limited extent, even in the Senate. You can break a filibuster with cloture, and you need help with a filibuster, because you can't possibly continue i
      • ...Shenkman's Presidential Ambition [addall.com].
        • I just got the No Debates [opendebates.org]. It's pretty good, outlines all the evidence against the CPD and how it is violationg federal law. Open Debates has some big names behind it.

          I saw a funny press conference (I think it's linked from above) where different people from the left and right support Open Debates, and they start arguing their pet issues against each other. :-) Like, guys, stay focused here ...
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.