Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Can anybody explain why we publicly fund ANY Presidential library? Why should I spend money to stroke a former President's ego? And that goes for ALL Presidents, including Bush's future library. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Can anybody explain why we publicly fund ANY Presidential library? Why should I spend money to stroke a former President's ego? And that goes for ALL Presidents, including Bush's future library. -=Mike I would imagine for the same reason Museums are, for the public good and historical significance and all that... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Can anybody explain why we publicly fund ANY Presidential library? Why should I spend money to stroke a former President's ego? And that goes for ALL Presidents, including Bush's future library. -=Mike Clinton's library was NOT publicly funded. It was funded entirely on private donations. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Can anybody explain why we publicly fund ANY Presidential library? Why should I spend money to stroke a former President's ego? And that goes for ALL Presidents, including Bush's future library. -=Mike Clinton's library was NOT publicly funded. It was funded entirely on private donations. Great point, I forgot about that. Well actually I believe how it works is it's privately funded to be built, but then after a certain time period it becomes publicly funded to be maintained. Is that correct? Anyway, our favorite commentators on America's fair and balanced network were actually speculating about how Mark Rich likely funded the thing, which is why Clinton gave him the pardon in his final act as President and that an investigation should be launched... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 20, 2004 I don't think that's as farfetched as it sounds actually. But ... admission is charged to the library, and that's what will cover the library's maintenance. Maintenance charges will actually be minimal. Again, the building is solar powered. Payroll of the archivists will be the main expense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Clinton's library was NOT publicly funded. It was funded entirely on private donations. Yeah, by Mark Rich and pals... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 In a prime-time television outburst, Bill Clinton (news - web sites) ripped old nemesis Kenneth Starr and what the former president portrayed as a gullible media eager to report every "sleazy thing" leaked from a prosecutor bent on bringing him down. The exchange came in an interview with ABC news anchor Peter Jennings that aired Thursday night, hours after Clinton opened his $165 million presidential library. Clinton blasted Starr and spoke disdainfully of a national media that he suggested was complicit in a scheme to ruin his presidency. "No other president ever had to endure someone like Ken Starr," Clinton said. "No one ever had to try to save people from ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and people in Haiti from a military dictator that was murdering them, and all the other problems I dealt with, while every day an entire apparatus was devoted to destroying him." The former president said he would go to his grave at peace that, while he had personal failings, he never lied to the American people about his job as president. Clinton added that he doesn't care about what his detractors think about him. Jennings then said it seemed to him that Clinton did care. The former president responded, "You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like." "You never had to live in a time when people you knew and cared about were being indicted, carted off to jail, bankrupted, ruined, because they were Democrats and because they would not lie," he said. "So, I think we showed a lot of moral fiber to stand up to that. To stand up to these constant investigations, to this constant bodyguard of lies, this avalanche that was thrown at all of us. And, yes, I failed once. And I sure paid for it. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry for the American people. And I'm sorry for the embarrassment they performed." Starr's former chief deputy said Friday he understood the difficulty for Clinton, but added that the bipartisan staff did what they had to do and performed honorably in seeking the truth. "It's not easy being accused of things. We had allegations and we had to investigate them," Hickman Ewing said. "We believe we performed in an honorable manner." As for the news coverage, he said the media "reported what they thought was news worthy." A seven-year, $70 million investigation conducted mostly by Starr ranged from Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater land deal in the 1980s to the president's affair with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was not among the dozen Arkansans indicted on criminal charges in the far-ranging Whitewater probe, but his affair with Lewinsky, a one-time White House intern, led to his impeachment by the GOP-controlled House in 1998. He was acquitted following a Senate trial. Starr, now dean of the Pepperdine University law school, did not immediately return a call seeking comment Friday. Source: yahoo news Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Clinton has a persecution complex. He blames the Republicans and Starr for all of his self-inflicted problems. He is a horribly immature person. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gary Floyd 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 Wow, a library dedicated to George Clinton, in Arkansas? That's an odd place. Oh, you mean Bill Clinton. Never Mind. Personally, I'll say this about him: Not as bad as some people say, but not as great either. I'm just surprised that there actually is a library in Arkansas (No offense to any TSM board members in Arkansas) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 20, 2004 The former president responded, "You don't want to go here, Peter. You don't want to go here. Not after what you people did and the way you, your network, what you did with Kenneth Starr. The way your people repeated every, little sleazy thing he leaked. No one has any idea what that's like." Picture someone like Al Sharpton saying this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/ http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/documents/ http://www.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/03/27newsb.html http://www.salonmag.com/news/1998/04/20news.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Clinton has a persecution complex. He blames the Republicans and Starr for all of his self-inflicted problems. He is a horribly immature person. -=Mike Clinton added that he doesn't care about what his detractors think about him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/scaife.profile/ http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/27/documents/ http://www.cjr.org/year/96/2/foster.asp http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/1998/03/27newsb.html http://www.salonmag.com/news/1998/04/20news.html Funny, you don't see Bush bitching about a vast left-wing conspiracy against him --- and he has an ACTUAL case to stand on. George Soros is MUCH worse than Scaife ever dreamed of being. Left-wing blogs, left-wing interest groups, etc --- all bankrolled by him. Clinton has a persecution complex. He blames the Republicans and Starr for all of his self-inflicted problems. He is a horribly immature person. -=Mike Clinton added that he doesn't care about what his detractors think about him. And he'll keep bitching about them --- as he did in his book, his library, and every interview since he left office --- to make sure you know that. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jobber of the Week 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 George Soros is MUCH worse than Scaife ever dreamed of being. Left-wing blogs, left-wing interest groups, etc --- all bankrolled by him. Bwahaha. According to Newsweek, Soros spent $25 million. (Source, cites Newsweek article) On the other hand... By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate. --WashPost, May 99 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 George Soros is MUCH worse than Scaife ever dreamed of being. Left-wing blogs, left-wing interest groups, etc --- all bankrolled by him. Bwahaha. According to Newsweek, Soros spent $25 million. (Source, cites Newsweek article) On the other hand... By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions – about $620 million in current dollars, adjusted for inflation. The total of Scaife's giving – to conservatives as well as many other beneficiaries – exceeds $600 million, or $1.4 billion in current dollars, much more than any previous estimate. --WashPost, May 99 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. He's funded left-wing interest groups slandering Bush. Soros has been markedly worse. Scaife gave, what, $340M over 4 DECADES. Soros has given $25M (and that figure, almost definitely, is insanely low) in less than 3 years. Soros is party of the VLWC -- but Bush has far too much class (oh yeah, and a lack of a persecution complex) to send his wife out to cry about it. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Ah, the ol' "they do it, so it's okay if we do it" defense. I condemn Soros and co. too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Okay, I suck at math but... Soros $25 million/3 yrs~$8.4 million/yr Scaife $620 million/~40 yrs~$15.5 million/yr Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Okay, I suck at math but... Soros $25 million/3 yrs~$8.4 million/yr Scaife $620 million/~40 yrs~$15.5 million/yr Except Soros' money has gone SOLELY to attack Bush. Scaife actually set up conservative think tanks and not simply bitchtanks. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Okay, I suck at math but... Soros $25 million/3 yrs~$8.4 million/yr Scaife $620 million/~40 yrs~$15.5 million/yr Except Soros' money has gone SOLELY to attack Bush. Scaife actually set up conservative think tanks and not simply bitchtanks. -=Mike And those think tanks are just peachy keen on Clinton, I'm sure. Look all I'm saying is that if you deny the VRWC you have to deny the VLWC. You can't have it both ways. By the way, does anyone else think that think tanks are crap? They lack the "checks and balances" of the academic world proper and are basically apparatuses to justify ideology ex post facto. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Care to guess who's bankrolling your favorite little blog? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Care to guess who's bankrolling your favorite little blog? -=Mike hmmm.. I could have sworn I asked for proof but.. yeah.. rumors and innuendo rule, don't they? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Care to guess who's bankrolling your favorite little blog? -=Mike hmmm.. I could have sworn I asked for proof but.. yeah.. rumors and innuendo rule, don't they? Why give proof when it'd be ignored. Soros bankrolls the liberal echo chamber like no other. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Care to guess who's bankrolling your favorite little blog? -=Mike hmmm.. I could have sworn I asked for proof but.. yeah.. rumors and innuendo rule, don't they? Why give proof when it'd be ignored. Soros bankrolls the liberal echo chamber like no other. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 Soros has funded left-wing blogs. feel free to prove that Care to guess who's bankrolling your favorite little blog? -=Mike hmmm.. I could have sworn I asked for proof but.. yeah.. rumors and innuendo rule, don't they? Why give proof when it'd be ignored. Soros bankrolls the liberal echo chamber like no other. -=Mike FreeRepublic.com is funded by the American Nazi Party, but I won't give you proof because it's so futile. Just admit it Mike.. you have no proof. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Big Ol' Smitty 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 The Weekly Standard is funded by Southeast Asian sex tourism prominently featuring young Laotian boys. But I'm not gonna prove it because nobody would listen if I did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rob E Dangerously 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 TheSmartMarks.com is funded by The Million Dollar Man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Czech Republic 0 Report post Posted November 21, 2004 You know, this whole instance of Clinton trying to rally the Democrats then freaking out at Peter Jennings is sort of a microcosm of his entire presidency. He'd do something respectable that we can all agree was a good thing, then blows it on something stupid and reminds you why you never really liked the guy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted November 21, 2004 You know, this whole instance of Clinton trying to rally the Democrats then freaking out at Peter Jennings is sort of a microcosm of his entire presidency. He'd do something respectable that we can all agree was a good thing, then blows it on something stupid and reminds you why you never really liked the guy. Even worse, he did the SAME thing on the BBC a few months back. You'd think he'd have learned a lesson. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Loss Report post Posted November 22, 2004 The media was harder on Clinton than they've been on Bush. Regardless of who you support, it's hard to debate that. Dubbya has basically gotten a free pass. I know, I know, Dan Rather, but Dan Rather doesn't represent the entire media. By a longshot. What about CNN? Peter Jennings? Tom Brokaw? MSNBC? Fox? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
