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.
...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.
Re:Sorry,
djberg96 on 2004-06-25T02:27:06
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.
Re:Sorry,
Whammo on 2004-06-25T12:01:52
Well, yes, but to a large extent, many of them didn't have national security to compromise.:-) Re:Sorry,
pudge on 2004-06-25T20:44:41
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.
Re:Sorry,
mary.poppins on 2004-06-26T22:15:46
For nastiness about Nixon, consider the atrocities in SE
Asia, or the murder of political activists in the US (search
for Fred Hampton). Though I suppose in the latter case you
could assert that it was strictly an FBI hit, and may not
have involved Nixon directly. But in the former, Nixon was
definitely responsible.
Re:Sorry,
pudge on 2004-06-26T22:55:37
For nastiness about Nixon, consider the atrocities in SE blah blah blah
Translation: "I hate American government in every form."Re:Sorry,
mary.poppins on 2004-06-27T00:04:23
To be more precise, I hate government in all its forms,
US or not. Though I don't see how that is relevant to
discussing whether Nixon is a murderous bastard or not.
The "blah blah" is all factual. Why the unfriendly
rhetoric?
Re:Sorry,
pudge on 2004-06-27T01:30:41
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.
Re:Sorry,
mary.poppins on 2004-06-27T01:58:33
Bombing of Cambodia.
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?
Re:Sorry,
pudge on 2004-06-27T02:37:12
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.
Re:comparisons
djberg96 on 2004-06-25T02:30:59
"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.
Re:comparisons
mary.poppins on 2004-06-25T03:12:29
> 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 charge are dangerously authoritarian.
> Maybe we need a revolution.
I definitely think we do, but not just any revolution. Typically revolutions
just end with a new batch of bosses in charge. We need a *particular type* of
revolution.
I think the organizing principle of society should be worker control. Free
software gives us a taste of that experience.
Re:comparisons
pudge on 2004-06-25T20:47:26
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.
Re:comparisons
mary.poppins on 2004-06-25T22:13:38
> 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.
The Communist Party is not the only alternative to
capitalism. Mistaking an anarchist for an advocate of state
control is a pretty big error. The modern US Republican
Party is a lot closer.
Re:comparisons
pudge on 2004-06-25T22:38:04
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.Re:comparisons
mary.poppins on 2004-06-26T00:52:26
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.
Re:comparisons
pudge on 2004-06-26T08:10:53
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 does, but whether he can be found to be at fault for doing so. I think the answer to the latter is yes, as well, though it appears the memo reaches a different conclusion. OMG A MEMO THAT I DISAGREE WITH.
Combine that with their plan for never-ending war
The justice department has a plan for never-ending war? Or do you mean the Bush administration? If the latter, you must not be paying attention, else you'd realize that Bush denied to exercise his authority to set aside any laws. The Bush administration did not accept the full conclusions of the memo you cite: it appears you are conflating. Oopsie on you.
You see, since the torture first came out, people have been trying to blame Bush for it. Every little thing that could possibly hint at Bush being tied to it has been exaggerated and trumped up by the blogocracy. But most of them fell strangely silent this week when a document dump showed many other administration documents saying torture is a bad idea, and that Bush wouldn't authorize the setting aside of any laws. They didn't like to mention that, because it hurt their case against Bush. But those of use who read all the news -- not just the parts that we like -- know better.
And in the end, not that different from the current regime in China.
Yes! Yes! Keep saying such obviously ridiculous things, and marginalize your views further, ensuring fewer and fewer people will listen.
Re:comparisons
mary.poppins on 2004-06-26T09:36:58
> 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 Cross people that complained last year that
this sort of treatment was commonplace? What of the
complaints of the soldiers that they were acting on the
instructions of intelligence officers?
And what of the British people released from Guantanamo who
complain that *they* were treated horribly, only to be
released without charge after two years? Are the released
people lying, or are the problems there completely unrelated
to happenings in Iraq?
I think the anger that you see in people is anger at being
lied to, brazenly and repeatedly, for years. So when people
see an opportunity to call the Administration on this BS,
they *are* excited.
Re:comparisons
pudge on 2004-06-26T15:08:31
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.
more bad apples
mary.poppins on 2004-06-26T10:11:49
"Reversing itself, the Army said Tuesday that a G.I. was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."
Re:I just looked
pudge on 2004-06-25T20:52:41
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 seriously wrong when our system presents Gore vs. Bush and Bush vs. Kerry as your "best candidates".
There are many reasons for this, of course. One of my favorite reasons to fight against is the corrupt election process: the primaries, the debates, the financing, etc. Did you know that a group of Republicans and Democrats (the CPD) controls who is allowed into the Presidential debates, and that they collude with the two parties and candidates, and the press, to exclude third parties? That's just one example.
It was supposed to be a victory when the people started to vote for electors. I think I preferred it when the legislatures chose the electors. At least then you didn't have to worry about putting on a pretty face for Soccer Moms, you needed to appeal on an intellectual and policy level to elected officials.
I don't think it is nearly as bad as you seem to think, but it has some serious flaws, many of them correctable.
Re:I just looked
phillup on 2004-06-25T22:31:51
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" of our government. (At least by the rednecks in the school system I escaped from long, long ago.)
Yet, for as long as I can remember paying attention (Carter) it seems that congress and the president have had an antagonistic relationship, at best. So, I was trying to allude to the idea that the president is presented as the person that leads our government, including congress, and the fact that for the most part congress pays little attention to the president. They are unwilling to be led.
---
Now we have a president and congress that are from the same party. From my perspective, the results have been disasterous. Instead of a system that protected the minority from the majority... we seem to have a "my way or the highway" mentality right now riding roughshod over anyone that doesn't believe, and not caring at all about the consequences because god is coming soon and who gives a damn.
I'd prefer we put a halt to the experiment. Waiting four years and hoping that the feedback loop works seems insane...
I don't think it is nearly as bad as you seem to think...
It can't be, thankfully.
But, I have become a pesimist... and paranoid... and cynical.
;-)
---
More importantly, I'm tired of the Clinton vs. Bush stuff that keeps occurring. As if one justifies the other. One person acting badly does not justify the other one acting badly. It is almost as if we are watching a race to the bottom of the barrel.
The correct response, IMHO... is neither . My real problem is... I don't particularly want any of the choices that have been presented.
Maybe we should be able to vote for "none". And, if the majority of the populace vote "none" for president, then we don't have a president that term.
Congress won't be able to pass a law unless it is veto proof. Everything else is to be considered vetoed. Personally, I think it would be great to have a very high barrier to changing the law. We've been at it for 200+ years now... just how long is it going to take to get them right anyway?
Don't know how to deal with all the "appointments" but I'm sure some alternative could be devised.Re:I just looked
pudge on 2004-06-25T22:56:04
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 President thinks. Did you know that some Presidents actually believed they were obligated -- not legally, but still -- to sign all legislation unless they believed it to be unconstitutional? Congress should not be led, they should lead. That's how it is by design, it is how it should be.
Now we have a president and congress that are from the same party. From my perspective, the results have been disasterous. Instead of a system that protected the minority from the majority... we seem to have a "my way or the highway" mentality right now riding roughshod over anyone that doesn't believe, and not caring at all about the consequences because god is coming soon and who gives a damn.
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. If they did, they wouldn't bother trying to change the world, they'd be out making real money in the private sector and enjoying themselves.
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.
I am not talking, of course, about the rights of minorities, which must be protected as per the Bill of Rights, etc. I am talking about minority voices not mattering in a democracy. Don't like it? Convince people to agree with you, then! Become a majority, or, like the Democrats in the Senate, a powerful minority.
I am tired of this whining about "why should you make laws I disagree with?" Because the majority agrees with them, that's why. That's how it works, and I like it that way (even when I am not in the majority, as I wasn't for most of my life).
More importantly, I'm tired of the Clinton vs. Bush stuff that keeps occurring. As if one justifies the other. One person acting badly does not justify the other one acting badly. It is almost as if we are watching a race to the bottom of the barrel.
To some extent I certainly agree. But some of this is not that. Like, when people bash Bush over 9/11, to try to score political points, it is reasonable to point out that Clinton made similar (and worse) errors that led to 9/11, too. It's not to make Bush look like he didn't do some things wrong, but to show that it is not a Bush failing, but a systemic failing. The CIA, the NSA, the FBI, State, the Presidency, everyone got it wrong. A few voices got it right, but most people, in both administrations, did not.
However, on the flipside, there are the judicial nominees. Democrats borked Bork, and then Republicans blocked a bunch of Clinton appointees, and now Democrats are returning the favor. Democrats justify it by saying the Republicans did it, and the Republicans justify what they did by pointing at Bork and saying what they did is not as bad as what the Democrats are doing.
In a very small sense, the Republicans are right (blocing nominees as a majority is not quite as abusive as what is IMO abusing the filibuster power, as the Democrats are doing now), but none of it really matters, because both are just, as you say, racing to the bottom, seeing who can get the other guys. And in the end, all of us suffer because we don't get judges in place, and when we do, they are judges acceptable to both sides (which often means they aren't very good).
But there are many solutions. We've been here before. This is not unprecedented. We had a chance to resolve this, but both the Republicans and Democrats -- in part because of the animosity that's been building over the past 20 years, culminating in an impeachment and a questioned election -- were too interested in scoring points to come together following 9/11.
But still, let's have some perspective. All is not. If we can come together after the Civil War, all is not lost here. I believe that soon we will see the parties coming together more, as they have in the past, but something big is going to happen first. Maybe another bad election. Maybe another catastrophe. Maybe something else. But something will break the cycle, because it always has.
Re:I just looked
phillup on 2004-06-26T00:05:51
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 this 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 subscribe to the idea of the tyranny of the majority?
I think this is exactly what we are seeing right now in congress.
That is one of the reasons that the senate has the filibuster. Because one man should be able to make a difference. This was supposed to balance the majority rules thing that happens in the house.
In the end, the system was set up to force discussion/debate and compromise. That is the part I feel is currently lacking. And the part I am "whining" about.
If we can come together after the Civil War, all is not lost here.
I felt better before you said that. I escaped from the south.
They don't call it the civil war, they call it the war of northern agression. We were taught that the president during the war was Jefferson Davis. Afterwards, what was called "Reconstruction" was called retribution in the south.
In many ways, what I see of the republican party (or the radical right portion) reminds me of the south. And, I can't help but think they are still out to "git thars"... and "make thangs right".
Actually, as I sit here and think about it, the "war" between the right and left is very similar to the war between the north and south. Except, right now, the south is winning. One side sees it as issues of humanity and the other of business.
(I must also sadly note that the slavery issue was so contentious that the founding fathers could not solve it. Instead they decided to count the slaves differently and shelve the rest of the issue for future resolution. In the south we were taught that the war wasn't really about slavery. It was the fact that representation in congress was divided by census data. And owning slaves got you more body count, thus more representation (a great deal because they counted, but could not vote). The north didn't like that. The south decided to split, the north didn't like that and attacked. History, as taught in southern public school 20 years ago.)Re:I just looked
pudge on 2004-06-26T05:32:35
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 it on your own indefinitely. If there is a very strong minority, then yes, you can prevent cloture and filibuster indefinitely, and that is what we have now, which I addressed.
They don't call it the civil war, they call it the war of northern agression.
Sure there's hard feelings, but most people have largely moved beyond it, in practice if not in theory.
In the south we were taught that the war wasn't really about slavery. It was the fact that representation in congress was divided by census data....
I think that's reasonably accurate. Lincoln was against freeing the slaves, because he knew it would mean secession. The preservation of the Union mattered above all else to him. The war was more about how states with slaves were losing the legislative battles because of lesser representation. Of course, once it all started, slavery was going to go away if the North won. And everyone probably felt slavery was going to eventually go away if the South did nothing, but it is not what directly precipitated it.
Check out...
Whammo on 2004-06-25T22:43:47
...Shenkman's Presidential Ambition.Re:Check out...
pudge on 2004-06-25T23:03:34
I just got the No Debates. 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 ...
