And they love this guy?

[Guest TheMikeSC]

In spite of huge book deals.

 

In spite of huge fees for making public speeches.

 

In spite of getting some sweetheart deals on their homes.

 

In spite of all that, the Clintons STILL owe $3.9M to their lawyers and, by the looks of things, might not EVER pay it off. Their legal defense fund has no money left and they're doing no fund-raising for it. And, God knows, they don't plan on using their personal money to pay it off.

 

Amazingly, in spite of their now considerable amounts of wealth, they have little interest in actually paying off the massive debt they raised with their lawyers---and feel that they shouldn't HAVE to pay off their debts.

 

I'll be the first to say that I find Bill Clinton to be a loathesome individual and amongst the least competent Presidents we've ever had (he's Gerald Ford with even FEWER accomplishments). I find him to be untrustworthy and always willing to do the sleaziest thing humanly possible to save himself a little trouble or to make a little cash (shall we go back into what he was doing while the country was obsessed with the problems in Florida?)

 

What I DON'T get is why the trial lawyers---up there with blacks in terms of blind loyalty to the Democratic Party---aren't raising a stink about the Clintons apparent attempts to walk away from the money they owe members of their field.

 

The Clintons could pay off this debt immediately if they chose to (their book deals---which are ALSO highly questionable---were worth a combined $18M and Clinton makes almost $10M a year from speaking fees)---but they don't want to.

 

Then again, they are THE prototypical baby boomer couple---so I probably shouldn't be all that surprised.

 

That generation never did learn responsibility or respect.

                    -=Mike

[Guest ant_7000]

and Dubya is any better, GORE 2004 baby!!!!!!

[Guest TheMikeSC]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and Dubya is any better, GORE 2004 baby!!!!!! >>>

 

 

Name one thing Bush has done that compares to the RAMPANT corruption of Clinton.

 

And, for what it's worth, I HOPE Gore wins the Democratic nomination in 2004.

 

God knows Bush could use an easily beatable opponent.

                        -=Mike

 

...Hmm, Gore had an economy whose weakness wasn't being reported, a President who was "popular", and "peace"---and STILL couldn't win?

[Guest ant_7000]

yea, he could'nt win because Bush is cheating (just kidding) , but thats electorial college for ya, Cheney was involved in that Enron scandal but Bush tried to help cover it up and Bush was funding the kings in the middle east for oil, But all the Clinton hating is valid he did scandalious stuff and im glad you left the affair out, but still he had a good approval rating, and if he had the chance to run again he would beat Dubya in a landslide. GORE will win this time around 2004.

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Why would Al Gore win in 2004. Bush's approval rating remains around 75%. Gore is the favorite to be the Democratic canidate because people don't know anyone else. If Bush has close to the popularity in 2 years than it won't matter who the Democratic nominee is.

[Guest RetroRob215]

Vern is right.  It won't matter who opposes Bush because he will win anyway.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Well remember that George Sr. had huge approval at the end of the Gulf War, and he ended up losing.  There is a lot of time between now and 2004.  Much could happen.  But if the election was held today, Bush would win very handily.  We shall see.

[Guest Ripper]

"Name one thing Bush has done that compares to the RAMPANT corruption of Clinton."

 

I found him coming out applauding Arafat for hit "anti-terrisom stance" a few days ago disgusting.  Arafat speaking out against terrorism has about as much validity as Clinton speaking out against infidelity and the Bush administration knows it.  It once again is just showing me that the US political leaders will look the other way as long as you have something to offer them.  Bush, Clinton, Gore...in the end it doesn't really matter.  Politics is a business and they will all do what is best for the business.  I'm not going to like Bush any more than Clinton just because he's not getting blown under his desk(at least I assume not).

[Guest TheMikeSC]

yea, he could'nt win because Bush is cheating (just kidding) , but thats electorial college for ya, Cheney was involved in that Enron scandal but Bush tried to help cover it up and Bush was funding the kings in the middle east for oil>>>

 

 

The U.S has, idiotically, done this for years.

 

And, for what it's worth, the Dems don't want to investigate Enron because it will tar a great many of them in the process.

 

 

<<<But all the Clinton hating is valid he did scandalious stuff and im glad you left the affair out, but still he had a good approval rating, and if he had the chance to run again he would beat Dubya in a landslide.>>>

 

 

In 2000, that is an, at best, iffy proposition.

 

Today, he'd be slaughtered. The 9/11 attacks, if nothing else, have shown how utterly inconsequential a President Clinton was and how poor his leadership was.

 

 

<<<GORE will win this time around 2004. >>>

 

 

Bush will slap Gore around worse than a pimp does to his hooker.

                        -=Mike

 

...BTW, nice to see ex-Pres. Carter continue his LONG-STANDING love affair with despots. "The Human Rights President"?

[Guest TJH]

Al Gore is about as exciting as sliced bread. Help me think of a single reason why people would want him as President.

But wait, I forgot his new beard. Bush doesn't have a chance.

[Guest]

Didn't he shave it off? So much for that ticket... no, wait! Wait! Hold on just a darn second here! He still has time to grow it out again!!!

 

Wow. Excuse me, I need to put a cold compress on my forehead.

[Guest Ripper]

Jimmy Carter has done more positive work for this country as a ex president than the last 4 active presidents.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Jimmy Carter has done more positive work for this country as a ex president than the last 4 active presidents. >>>

 

 

Carter is alo the MOST pro-repressive dictator President we've EVER had. There are precious few dictators he hasn't just adored.

 

And he is nothing but a thorn in the side for whomever is in the White House. Funny that a man who was so bloody inept when President himself only seeks to make himself a pain for later Presidents.

 

Now, he wants to negotiate between the U.S and Palestine? As one columnist pointed out, isn't it a little sad that a former AMERICAN President wants to negotiate and NOT represent America?

 

Bush Sr. is the model ex-President---not the hayseed from Georgia.

            -=Mike

[Guest TheMikeSC]

Didn't he shave it off? So much for that ticket... no, wait! Wait! Hold on just a darn second here! He still has time to grow it out again!!!

 

Wow. Excuse me, I need to put a cold compress on my forehead. >>>

 

 

Marney, let's be honest: Gore with a beard is enough to make you reconsider that whole "being gay" thing, isn't he?

 

Chicks dig the 'stache!

                   -=Mike

 

...And, yes, I'm kidding.

[Guest]

Jimmy Carter has done more positive work for this country as a ex president than the last 4 active presidents.

Don't make me laugh. He's utterly ineffectual and clueless and he always has been. He's downright embarrassing. My mom's worked with him in Africa and some of her stories are just hilarious. A couple of years ago, he asked to participate in in some talks she was holding. He begged a bunch of warlords to sign pieces of paper promising they'd stop killing people, and promised them money and aid if they did. The warlords signed and he thanked them and my mom profusely and left, ecstatic. My mom sighed and asked the warlords if they intended to honour their promises. They said, "Of course not." Wearily, she asked, "Why?" They said, "A promise means nothing if you do not respect the person to whom you make it."

Exactly so. How can you expect Carter to negotiate seriously with warlords and despots when the man was once attacked by a rabbit.

[Guest]

Chicks dig the 'stache!

Actually, I do think he looked better with the beard. <g> But "better" is a relative term, and I still have nightmares about him slobbering over Tipper.

Now Patrick Stewart, he could turn me straight anytime.

[Guest Ripper]

For all his ineptness and cluelessness, at least he attempts to do something of importance with his "celebrity" and former importance(Yeah, he believes he is doing alot more good than he actually is but its the attempt sometimes) .  Some of his neotiations might not have had the effect that he intended or believed he recieved, but he does open the doors for negotiations for the US.  How does the saying go, you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar.  I'm sure that Bush expects to get alot done with his "Either you're with us or you are a terrorist!!" threats(which I found to be so ridiculously insulting to the people that the US all but told to fuck off for many years).  

 

Bush has sullied his reputation in my eyes.  What other US president in the history of campaining resorted to childish name calling in their campain speechs to try and over come there low poll numbers.  Thats how a president should carry himself, huh.  

 

Still wondering how Carter having talks with Cuba is worst than  Bush trying to shine a positive light on a known terrorist supporter.

[Guest the 1inch punch]

If Gore wins in 2004, Joe"I'm a Nazi"Lieberman will be VP, keep that in mind

[Guest Some Guy]

The sad thing about Jimmy Carter is that he has done more good for the country after his term in office than during his term.  Carter may have been the most inept President in the last hundred years.  He is a very honest guy which is quite a novelty for the Democrats but his administration was an undenyable failure on almost all levels.  

If Gore gets the nomination Bush will easily beat him, the guy has no personality and he won't have the same support from the Dems as he did in 2000. Gore also chose a poor Vice Presidential candidate, this time it'll be Dascle who's even worse.

 

About the original topic of this thread.  I heard some former Clinton lawyer on Fox news last night say that Clinton doesn't think that he should pay people who work for him because they should consider it an honor just to be under his employment.  This sounds about par for the course for the Clintons.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

For all his ineptness and cluelessness, at least he attempts to do something of importance with his "celebrity" and former importance(Yeah, he believes he is doing alot more good than he actually is but its the attempt sometimes) .>>>

 

 

No, this is Carter's desperate attempt to create a legacy for himself outside of his outright useless administration.

 

 

<<<Some of his neotiations might not have had the effect that he intended or believed he recieved, but he does open the doors for negotiations for the US.>>>

 

 

Making statements in open opposition to the policies of the President doesn't help the U.S whatsoever. And Carter has done that to every President that has followed him---you know, the ones who had to fix the disaster he left us.

 

 

<<<How does the saying go, you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar.  I'm sure that Bush expects to get alot done with his "Either you're with us or you are a terrorist!!" threats(which I found to be so ridiculously insulting to the people that the US all but told to fuck off for many years).>>>

 

 

Bush stated a fact. He's backed off the statement and it's a real shame, mind you. But, I'll take Bush's "insulting" comments over Carter's blatant attempt to portray himself as a modern-day Jesus who cares about all people---well, except for the people who live in leftist dictatorships.  

 

 

<<<Bush has sullied his reputation in my eyes.  What other US president in the history of campaining resorted to childish name calling in their campain speechs to try and over come there low poll numbers. Thats how a president should carry himself, huh.>>>

 

Low poll numbers? When has Bush had low poll numbers? Even before 9/11, he was usually above 50%. Bush insulted our ENEMIES---as he SHOULD have.

 

Do you think FDR painted Hitler in positive terms?

 

 

<<<Still wondering how Carter having talks with Cuba is worst than  Bush trying to shine a positive light on a known terrorist supporter. >>>

 

 

It's not worse. It's just more of the same. There has never been a bigger hypocrite in the office than our "Human Rights" President Carter.

 

A few examples:

 

--- Cyrus Vance has stated that if re-elected in 1980, Carter would have sold Israel down the river.

 

--- During the build-up to the Gulf War, Carter wrote to several members of the Security Council (we know, definitively, that he wrote to China and France) urging them to oppose us in our conflict with Iraq. Yes, wrote to state urging them to oppose the U.S in a very justifiable policy.

 

--- A Quote on the Israel/Palestinian conflict: "The intifada exposed the injustice Palestinians suffered, just like Bull Connor’s mad dogs in Birmingham."

 

--- Story told by biographer Douglas Brinkley: "At their first meeting — in 1990 — Carter boasted of his toughness toward Israel, assuring Arafat at one point, “. . . you should not be concerned that I am biased. I am much more harsh with the Israelis.” Arafat, for his part, railed against the Reagan administration and its alleged “betrayals.” Rosalynn Carter, taking notes for her husband, interjected, “You don’t have to convince us!” Brinkley records that this “elicited gales of laughter all round.” Carter himself, according to Brinkley, “agreed that the Reagan administration was not renowned as promise keepers”

 

Yup, ATTACKED the President to a terrorist.

 

--- Another story told by Brinkley (who, mind you, is PRO Carter):

 

After Carter had that first meeting with Arafat, he went home and promptly served the PLO head as PR adviser and speechwriter. What do I mean? Listen to Brinkley: “On May 24 Carter drafted on his home computer the strategy and wording for a generic speech Arafat was to deliver soon for Western ears . . .” Said Carter, “The audience is not the Security Council, but the world community. The objective of the speech should be to secure maximum sympathy and support of other world leaders . . . The Likud leaders are now on the defensive, and must not be given any excuse for continuing their present abusive policies.”

 

Carter went on,

 

A good opening would be to outline the key points of the Save the Children report. . . . Then ask: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren? As the Palestinian leader, I share the responsibility for them. Our response has been to urge peace talks, but the Israeli leaders have refused, and our children continue to suffer. Our people, who face Israeli bullets, have no weapons: only a few stones remaining when our homes are destroyed by the Israeli bulldozers.” . . . Then repeat: “What would you do, if these were your children and grandchildren?” . . . This exact litany should be repeated with a few other personal examples.

 

 

--- He STILL argues that Arafat was legitimately, democratically elected by Palestinians---even though Yssir personally approved of his "opponent" and pulled down roughly 97% of the vote (which, mind you, isn't possible in a democracy).

 

--- Carter on Yugoslavia's Tito: “a man who believes in human rights.”

 

--- Carter on Romania's Ceausescu: “Our goals are the same: to have a just system of economics and politics . . . We believe in enhancing human rights.”

 

--- He praised Syria's Assad

 

--- He praised Ethiopia's Mengistu

 

--- Carter on N. Korea's Kim Il Sung: “I find him to be vigorous, intelligent, surprisingly well informed about the technical issues, and in charge of the decisions about this country”

 

--- Carter on N. Korea: “I don’t see that they [the North Koreans] are an outlaw nation.” Pyongyang, he observed, was a “bustling city,” where shoppers “pack the department stores,” reminding him of the “Wal-Mart in Americus, Georgia.”

 

--- Carter was, by all accounts, angry when Daniel Ortega (not the most open, gentle leader out there) lost a legitimate election in Nicaragua.

 

--- Carter on Iraq: “I think the sanctions are hurting the people of Iraq, and not Saddam Hussein, whom I consider to be a dictator, and I think an insensitive dictator [!], and he is able now to blame all of his maybe self-induced problems economically and socially, on the United States because of our sanctions and because of our fairly infrequent aerial attacks.”

 

Amaingly idiotic blindness by the biggest hypocrite we've ever made the mistake of electing into office. God willing, he'll decide to stay in Cuba.

 

God knows WE have never needed him.

              -=Mike

[Guest Some Guy]

BTW I was talking about Carter's work with Habitat For Humanity as the good he's done since leaving office.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

<<<The sad thing about Jimmy Carter is that he has done more good for the country after his term in office than during his term.>>>

 

 

It depends on what you mean by good. Building homes --- yes, good.

 

His interference in int'l politics --- unspeakably bad.

 

 

<<<Carter may have been the most inept President in the last hundred years.>>>

 

 

Well, he and Ford are WAY up there.

 

 

<<<He is a very honest guy which is quite a novelty for the Democrats but his administration was an undenyable failure on almost all levels.  >>>

 

 

I don't think he's that honest. He likes to PLAY the role of the honest, God-fearing man---but he's either mind-numbingly stupid or willfully ignorant over people who are unerringly evil.

 

 

<<<If Gore gets the nomination Bush will easily beat him, the guy has no personality and he won't have the same support from the Dems as he did in 2000. >>>

 

 

By ALL accounts, Gore SHOULD have won. He had an economy who's slide was being ignored at the time (and I LOVED that Democrats accused Bush of "talking" the country into a recession during his first year), peace, and a "popular" (sort of) President. He was allegedly (incorrectly, mind you) more intelligent---and with ALL of those advantages, he still lost---and not for some really bad media coverage of the states, might have flat-out lost the popular vote as well.

 

 

<<<Gore also chose a poor Vice Presidential candidate, this time it'll be Dascle who's even worse.>>>

 

 

Heck, the Dems are toying around with the idea of running Hillary---which might be a good idea.

 

Considering how loathed Hillary is in NY (how many funerals did she go to for 9/11 victims? Anybody guessing NONE? You'd be right), I doubt she'll get re-elected.

 

 

<<<About the original topic of this thread.  I heard some former Clinton lawyer on Fox news last night say that Clinton doesn't think that he should pay people who work for him because they should consider it an honor just to be under his employment.  This sounds about par for the course for the Clintons. >>>

 

 

Actually, the guy you heard was Dick Morris who ran Clinton's campaigns and noted that he got paid "in advance".

 

And, no, I don't think much of Morris, either.

             -=Mike

[Guest TJH]

Anyone know a site you can get odds on 2004 election?

[Guest]

"It once again is just showing me that the US political leaders will look the other way as long as you have something to offer them.  Bush, Clinton, Gore...in the end it doesn't really matter"

 

No shit sherlock!

 

William

[Guest Vern Gagne]

Jimmy Carter should just build houses and shut up about anything political.