• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Mr. Clinton, you are no longer wanted

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
We all want the people in Asia to receive all they need in this terrible time after the natural disaster. The American people either individually or through our government will surely do as much as we can to alleviate as much suffering as possible. Yet, the sight of President Clinton on stage with the current and former President Bush(s) should serve as a reminder to those dedicated to improving the Democratic party and America that he will not leave on his own. It is true that the cause is one of unity, and charity, yet we as a nation must have SOME standards. If President Clinton didn't do enough to deserve public censure and isolation after his term ended, we must ask what are the sins that would trigger a cultural shunning? For those who don't remember, here is an incomplete list of credible allegations that President Clinton has been involved in:


http://www.newliberals.org/elections.htm



It's been over twelve years now since we've had to deal with the stories, allegations, denials, untruths, and self-indulgence of President Clinton. It's interesting that the incorrect Conventional Wisdom in 1991 that left the Democratic nomination to the second-tier candidates is still impacting on us today. At some point ,on some day, we have to write a conclusion and end the Clinton Book. We should do it by coming together as party and defining criteria for people seeking any public office under the Democratic label:

PROPOSED RULES:

1. You must be honest about any past mideeds. If they are too bad don't seek office or an appointment.

2. You must have lived the last five years in a moral and ethical way including being faithful to your spouse, and abiding by all laws.



I have enough faith in the talent of people on the Left that we can define Liberal positively, and maintain more than minimal standards.



Craig Farmer

making the word "liberal" safe again
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
My, My! Don't we have a full load of righteousness and moral indignation, now? Lots of instructions on how we can behave and
improve ourselves too! Thank you sooooo much.

How could it have happened that we elected a politician who turned out to be unfaithful to his wife? Such a thing is truly shocking. Shocking! It is a testimony to the impeccable morals of this great nation that this has happened only the one time, and surely we owe much to vigilant watchdogs such as yourself, Richard Mellon Scaife and the various media for it. In a world where the general run of mankind tends a bit towards dalliance, the precision with which you ferreted out your man and the persistence displayed is quite amazing.

Was it the Whitewater affair that put you onto him? Surely a man who lost money on a real estate deal must be guilty of something. People who lose money on real estate cannot be trusted. Too bad that didn’t work out. On the bright side, it did get the organization tuned up and the media became accustomed to running the same story day after day after day. That really came in handy when l’affair Monica popped up.

Machiavelli would have been proud of the way that was handled. Put the evil man in an impossible position and you’ve got him no matter what he does. Except it didn’t work out that way, did it? Two-thirds of the Senate was needed to convict and you couldn’t even come up with a simple majority. Ah, well, you seem to have recovered your pomposity rather well, so no harm done. Still on the case, I see.
:rofl
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
More importantly, who cares? President's have to be happy, maybe his wife just wasn't doing it for him. I love how all the "crimes" he is being called out upon in that article are all "accusations" which don't imply he actually did the deed. What do you think being impeached is? AN ACCUSATION.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
I was being kind to the former President based on the current state on his "record".

Anyone who doubts that President Clinton was guilty of multiple crimes, ethics violations, and just plain bad behavior is either willingly ignorant or....


We Democrats are truly in a bind. Anti-Republican sentiment can win in many states, and come close nationally, but: we don't have a compelling positive message that has people dreaming of the possibilities, and our most ardent activists are less likeable than the Republicans' foot soldiers.

President Clinton who could have institutionalized a Democratic majority for a generation, actually did the opposite.

If things continue on his path, we are doomed, and another Party may have to be created.

The latest news is... President Clinton's pick, the current DNC chair is being asked to stay.

Jimmy Carter could have done the Asia solicitations.

President Clinton should retire.

I think President Bush might be keeping President Clinton relevant to remind the American people to vote Republican.


Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
www.newliberals.org
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Clinton may have had a slightly less than satisfactory personal life but how many died under him?
 

Kenneth T. Cornelius

Active member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
255
Reaction score
4
craigfarmer said:
I was being kind to the former President based on the current state on his "record".

Anyone who doubts that President Clinton was guilty of multiple crimes, ethics violations, and just plain bad behavior is either willingly ignorant or....


We Democrats are truly in a bind. Anti-Republican sentiment can win in many states, and come close nationally, but: we don't have a compelling positive message that has people dreaming of the possibilities, and our most ardent activists are less likeable than the Republicans' foot soldiers.

Actually, I am afraid that I DON'T know about Clinton's multiple offenses. He fooled around with one young lady and got caught and we were treated to an unending soap opera about it. When he left office, though, he turned over a country in a hell of a lot better shape than it's been since.

I agree that the Democrats are in foul shape. As a matter of fact, I voted for Kerry only because Stonewall Jackson's horse was not on the ballot. The soul of the Democratic party is a wholly owned division of corporate America. It has forgotten the working man and even using the term these days is tres gauche.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
If asking a public official to follow the law, uphold ethical behavior, and pursue an agenda that is in the best interest of the country is too high of a standard, then ....


It is poor politics to "count" the people that "died" under a President's watch.

First of all, as far as I know, we all have to go unfortunately, and to single out a political decision-maker in a democracy is not very astute.

Whether under Bush, Clinton, or anyone, any decision they make by definition is agreed to either overtly or tacitly by members of their staff, Congress of both parties, the Court system, etc.
If they weren't, they would be removed from office one way or another.



Yet, if you want to play the "no one died because of Clinton", here goes:

Rwanda---his policy allowed genocide
9/11---his policy left Al Quaeda in place
"wag the dog bombings" in Iraq during Monica crisis---
it goes on.


Newliberals need to be advocates of truth, logic, honesty, and what's in the best interest of the American people in this the greatest country ever created.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
www.newliberals.org
 

tann

New member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Location
midwest
It is not like he is the first president to be caught. Most have done it jsut not in the media's eyes. Who cares anyways. There has to be a point of personal life and the pres. life. That is not up to us, that is between Bill and his wife not Bill, Hilliary and the whole U.S.A. What matters is Was he a good leader? AND YES he was a damn good leader
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
craigfarmer said:
Yet, if you want to play the "no one died because of Clinton", here goes:

Rwanda---his policy allowed genocide
9/11---his policy left Al Quaeda in place
"wag the dog bombings" in Iraq during Monica crisis---
it goes on.


www.newliberals.org
I refuse to see the connection betwean clinton and the Al Qaeda atacks. Please enlighten me.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Yes we all know Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11. That sonofabitch.

Sike.
 

Rhadamanthus

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
186
Reaction score
2
Location
Alaska
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Ya, and while we're yelling at clinton, he started mad cow disease, created anthrax, and is the cause of obesity.
 

craigfarmer

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2004
Messages
175
Reaction score
6
Rhadamanthus said:
I refuse to see the connection betwean clinton and the Al Qaeda atacks. Please enlighten me.



As a newliberal, I'm dedicated to the facts, and reality. Though generally, I agreed with the policy direction of the Clinton administration, the facts are in many areas they were delinquent:

Both the Clinton Adminst. and congress didn't pursue the root causes and implications of the 1993 WTC bombings and subsequent attacks in a tough way.

Clinton pursued his Balkans policy which didn't have any national security implications for the US with WAY MORE intensity than these Islamic terrorists who clearly posed a danger. I believe Clinton did this because of a reflexive "leftist" ideology that hesistates to use military power to protect ourselves for fear of world criticism, yet an eagerness to use military power for "good" selfless reasons.

A timeline of the President's middle-east and anti-terrorism policy demonstrates to me that his desire to stay in office in spite of scandals was the number one priority and the war on terror which Clinton/Albright declared was secondary and actually used to prop him up.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again
 

apathetic fools

New member
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Location
In deserted ohio
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Didn't Clinton dropped the bomb, and engaged in making his vice president eat mud pies? Oh, and I heard he held hands with the Saudi Prince. He is such a scoundrel :lol: Get over it! The republicans practically drove him to his grave. The poor man only wanted a good heathcare system. If you can't see through that smoke screen, you must be an apathetic fool. Republicans created single handedly dirty politics, beginning with Nixon. We need Larry Flint to uncover more of their dirt, than run like Bush and say"I think he is a good man":cool: Face it, if President Clinton could run again, we would re-elect him hands down :2razz: America loves him, our boys were home, our economy was far better, and he is much smarter than, Uh :doh Uh whats his name? Oh yes, Bush. Clinton is a diplomat, and would have tried everything possible before invading Iraq. Every coffin, widow, and orphan, is the Bush administration's responsibility. Re-elect Clinton for President :cool:
 
Top Bottom