But KMA deserved a response for this:


And as for what Clinton did when he left. As I recall he balanced the budget.


During his last day in office Clinton issued 140 pardons and 36 commutations.

jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/pardons6a.htm)

Most Notorius? Marc Rich.

www.time.com/time/nation/...02,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,99302,00.html)
www.worldnetdaily.com/new...E_ID=21595 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21595)
www.msnbc.com/news/529942.asp?cp1=1 (http://www.msnbc.com/news/529942.asp?cp1=1)


In August of 1999 he granted clemency to 16 FALN members (the FALN was responsible for 130 bombings in the US from 74-83).

www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLIT...ln.pardon/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/08/faln.pardon/)

www.adl.org/presrele/Tero...461_92.asp (http://www.adl.org/presrele/Teror_92/3461_92.asp)

In December of 1999 he pardoned Susan Rosenberg, a member of "The Family", a collection of violent activist groups responsible for the 1983 bombing of the US Capitol building among other things. Rosenberg was suspected to be driving one of the cars in the 1981 brinks robbery where a security guard and two police officers were killed. She was sentenced to 58 years in jail for possession of 640 lbs of explosives as well as blasting caps and automatic weapons.

www.crimelibrary.com/terr...ml?sect=22 (http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/brinks/13.html?sect=22)

Then of course you have the Clintons removing furniture from the White House(govt property) to furnish their new homes in 2000. Later when caught at it they sent back what the Clintons called "four items" and the National Park Service called "a truckload of couches, lamps and other furnishings".

"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago" Feb 10, 2001 Washington Post

Along those same lines, the Clintons took art donated in 1993 by over 70 artists specifically for display in the White House and placed it in the Clinton Presidential Library.

pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypo...THEMSELVES (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/68907158.html?did=68907158&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=BILL,+HILL+CAN+GIVE+-+TO+THEMSELVES)

Then of course we have the flurry of executive orders during his last days in office that I referred to in the other post. Clinton issued over 30,000 pages of regulations during the last 90 days of his Presidency.

www.probe.org/docs/c-execorders.html (http://www.probe.org/docs/c-execorders.html)


Oh, one last thing KMA: Clinton did not balance the budget. If you recall it was the republican congress that pushed so hard for a balanced budget. It was their primary goal at that time.

www.usatoday.com/news/ind...bud000.htm (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/budget/nbud000.htm)

PWNED!

Can you tell me the unemployement numbers before, during and after Clinton?

Clemency actions are nothing new to the presidential game. While Clinton riegned atop the GREATEST economic enviroment ever he gave out 456 Clemency actions. Your right wing moron Reagon was right behind him with 406. This is no where near the 3500+ FDR tossed out, 1100+ Eisenhower gave out, or JFK's 575.

- Clemency actions" include pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, remissions -

On top of that, you need to look a little bit deeper to find horrible pardons. How about Nixon giving a communication of sentence to Jimmy Hoffa? George Bush SR. pardoned Weinberger, McFarlane and some others that were directly related to the whole Iran Contra affair. Reagon pardoned Wendal Walker who was in jail for 5 years for robbery. What ever happened to Wendal Walker? He went on to murder his wife and dismember her body. How about Ford giving Nixon a pardon so he did face any charges. Is that enough for you? You can take that PWNED and shove it right back up your ass.

Why? Your head takes up too much space in yours?

Wow. really hit a "liberal bone" there did we? Sorry The "great" economy was set up for him buy Reagan and Bush Sr. He rode the bubble until it burst a year before he left office. Now the Republicans must once again fix what the Democrats fucked up. Just like they did after Carters administration. Stick that pwned right back up your ass you sissy liberal hippy.

Regan gave out 406 clemency/pardon actions in 8 years?

Clinton gave out 235 in the last 30 days he was in office. That's over half of his total for 8 years. Not only that, he bypassed the justice department's pardon process for several of those.

As far as "horrible pardons", I wasn't going to focus as much on this but if you want to bring it up..pardongate!

Clinton's pardon for Marc Rich was heavily investigated, being that his wife gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation, $109,000 to Hillary's senatorial campaign, $100,000 to the democratic national committee, $40,000 to pay for entertainers at Hillary's Oct 25, 2000 birthday, and a $25,000 donation to the Gore-Lieberman recount committee. That of course is excluding the thousands of dollars in gifts of furniture, etc she gave to the Clintons.

Then of course you have the pardons of two clients of his brother-in-law, who collected fees from those people for pursuing their pardons

Did Reagon sell pardons too? I don't remember anything about him or Ford doing that. Even Nixon, a better president by far than Clinton despite watergate, never did such a thing to my knowledge.

Can you tell me the unemployement numbers before, during and after Clinton?

Yup. Can you? Are the things Clinton did OK because he happened to be president during an economic bubble?

Or are you just trying to take a jab at America again?

Yup. Can you?
Nope I can't that's why I asked...

Maybe I should rephrase so you understand..

Question: Does anyone know the numbers of unemployement before, during and after Clinton was in power because I don't know them and would find this number interesting.

Use google. Or search this forum for a chart posted several months ago.

Clinton gave out 235 in the last 30 days he was in office. That's over half of his total for 8 years.

OK I'm a bit puzzled by this argument.
What are you saying? That it was wrong for Clinton to pardon 235 people in the last 30 days of his office because it was more then half he gave in total over 8 years?
So it would have been ok if he had given those pardons distributed evenly over an 8 year period? Say like 10 a month during 8 years.
Giving pardons during the last day's of you're office is done by many presidents in many countries, including the USA.
I don't agree with it, but it has become somewhat of a tradition for parting presidents.
And as stated above by Broneb, the total number of pardons issued during his 8 year presidency is not extremely high.
So the number given in the final days of his office is in that respect irrelevant.

Clinton's pardon for Marc Rich was heavily investigated, being that his wife gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library foundation, $109,000 to Hillary's senatorial campaign, $100,000 to the democratic national committee, $40,000 to pay for entertainers at Hillary's Oct 25, 2000 birthday, and a $25,000 donation to the Gore-Lieberman recount committee. That of course is excluding the thousands of dollars in gifts of furniture, etc she gave to the Clintons.

It is common practice in US politics to except gifts from company's and individuals.
This is allowed and to a certain extend promoted.
It is naive to believe that the donators don't expect anything in return.
This is off course not "official" but there is no way the gun manufacturers are gonne give millions of dollars to a presidential candidate that wants to prohibit gun ownership.
And without the money off these companies its gonne be hard for any candidate to get elected.
I know you're now gonne scream like "all our politicians are honest and can not be bought" , my return question would be : If they can't be bought why accept (and in most cases ask for) those gifts in the first place?
Simple because they need the money to run for president and if they don't their opponent will.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you tell me the unemployement numbers before, during and after Clinton?

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


Yup. Can you?


No he can't thats why he asks for them.
Really responding to a question with a counter question asking the same thing implies that you don't know the answer either or you're not willing to share that information.
If you're not willing to share, it must be damaging to you're argument or if you don't wanne share that information you're simply not willing to contribute to the discussion.
Which is it?

Are the things Clinton did OK because he happened to be president during an economic bubble?

This comment implies that you don't think a president has any influence on the economy of the country he is running.
So it's all a matter of luck?
If that was the case why even elect a president?
The country would be better off running itself.

implies that you don't know the answer either or you're not willing to share that information.

Or simply that Ytrok is trying to get others to do his legwork for discussions that have already been hashed to death on these boards.


It is common practice in US politics to except gifts

Agreed. However, it's not common practice to accept over $700k in cash gifts (and as the poster said, thousands upon thousands of dollars in non-cash gifts) from a felon currently being hunted by your own FBI, who won't step foot in the U.S. for fear of being picked up and thrown in jail. Not to mention the fact that the gifts came from a "divorced" or "separated" wife who "didn't know where he was."

But then again, this discussion really doesn't fit here. Bashing Clinton ( or Bush if you're from across the pond) is too easy.

This comment implies that you don't think a president has any influence on the economy of the country he is running.

The influence the president has over the economy is a result of the president's ability to affect policy as it applies to economic issues. The president does not control the economy directly, but can effect the tax burden, red tape, and other items which directly affect business profits, which in turn effect salaries, unemployment, etc.

These things don't happen overnight. It has been common practice that the conservatives work to build the economy by bolstering the private sector business community, thereby creating jobs and more profits, which in turn benefit the workers. Then, the liberals promise to give away the fruits of that economic surge to the less priveledged, thereby buying votes. Once the liberals institute more taxes and spending for "entitlements", the economy starts to tank, and the conservatives have to start over.

It appears to me, if you watch the economic cycles for the past 100 years, that this pattern holds true. However most of us that play EQ aren't economists, nor scholars of history, and believe much of what we are spoonfed by MTV, Hollywood, The Daily Show, and other "hip" media outlets. And these are even far left of the typical 6pm newscast.

It's too bad that many folks don't reach concusions based on their own logic, but allow themselves to be programmed by television. Those that seem to understand all sides of issues like this, and can comment intelligently, listen and read news sources from all points of view, not just those that favor their political preferences.

Lets talk about the Marc Rich pardon. By you number Rich donated a few 100k to Clinton funds. It seems that Clinton did nothing but follow in Reagon's footsteps. Reagon pardoned George Steinbrenner, who had conspired to make illegal contributions to Nixon. He also followed in Bush's footsteps who pardoned Armand Hammer, who had pleaded guilty in 1975 to laundering illicit contributions for Richard Nixon's 1972 re-election campaign. The billionaire oilman made generous donations to the Republican Party both before and immediately after the pardon was granted in 1989. I guess you need to make illegal contributions to get a Republican pardon.

As for your comment about Clintons balanced budget being caused by Reagon and Bush, keep telling yourself that. Someday pigs might fly out your ass.

That it was wrong for Clinton to pardon 235 people in the last 30 days of his office because it was more then half he gave in total over 8 years?


I'm saying it was wrong for Clinton to bypass the system set in place for handling pardons, and furthermore wrong of him to sell pardons - not only is that not promoted, it is not legal. Hence the multitude of investigations of and hurried spinning by the Clintons on the matter.

It is normal practice for lobbyists to give gifts to lawmakers. I think you are confused by the difference between trying to influence laws in the processs of being made and buying your way around rules already in place.

It seems that Clinton did nothing but follow in Reagon's footsteps.

Need we bring up Gore? Or the Lincoln bedroom? Geeze.

Lets talk about the Marc Rich pardon. By you number Rich donated a few 100k to Clinton funds.


Actually the total figure is closer to 1.5 million. Maybe you also missed the part where he payed for the entertainment at Hillary's birthday party. Maybe you also forgot to notice Reagan never got a dime from Steinbrenner so that comparison is moot, or that Hammer's crime was concealing $54,000 to Nixon's reelection campaign(gee, thats barely more than Rich spent on Hillary's birthday party isn't it?) and I sure didnt find anything about him donating to the republican party as you said.

But of course both of those pardons were heavily investigated too right? Because the legality of them was seriously questionable just like Clinton's?

DOH!

Another slight oversight is that Hammer and Steinbrenner had already been punished for their crime while Rich was a fugitive from our legal system. That's ok, you tend to have extremely selective reading, like your repeated attempts to see illegal and legal immigrants as the same thing.

Ps. Bush had something like a dozen pardons at the end of his term..... 235 vs 12

You lazy unable-to-use-google bastards:

www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm (http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm)

1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8

Clinton served from 1993-2001. The answer to your question is:

Before: 7.5%
During: 5.1%
After: 5.8%
Today: 6.1%

Many would argue that this is a trend that Reagan and Bush were responsible for starting, considering Clinton certainly didn't have any responsibility for the rate dropping from 9.7 to 5.3 between 1982 and 1989.

Thank you very much Palimax, that's all I wanted to find out.

Crist0

i quoted nosegoblin's post. i agree with you.

Being President is a combination of a lot of things...
Was Clinton lucky in a lot of ways?
Yes.
Did Clinton do things to help the economy along the way?
Yes.

Hell.. if just sheperding a healthy economy is so easy.. wtf is GWB problem?
Bottom line is the man was an average President..
Reagan will stand out as the best President of the Era with the rest of them being footnotes... except GWB for being such a fuckup.

Oh yeah, Clinton rode an economic bubble created by Regan and Bush Sr?

Then tell me why was it when Clinton took office this country was in the worse recessions since the great depression?

Tell me how this current administration, which is led by the first MBA president ever has managed to rack up the second largest deficit in history. The only deficit that was larger was during the great depression? Of course the stock answer is the war, terrorism etc. But the reality is, that is not true. The tax break is causing the recession.

Tell me how this president cut 100 Million dollars from anti terrorism programs in 2000, but some how Clinton gets the blame for 9/11.

Go here and learn about Dubya and his LIES.

www.house.gov/reform/min/...ndscience/ (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/)

It is normal practice for lobbyists to give gifts to lawmakers. I think you are confused by the difference between trying to influence laws in the processs of being made and buying your way around rules already in place.

Not really, I just think there is not a big difference.
Only real difference is the timing of the bribe.

Then tell me why was it when Clinton took office this country was in the worse recessions since the great depression?

1. Did anyone specifically say Reagan/Bush Sr. created the economic bubble? People might not be so inclined to say things like that if Clinton/Gore didn't take so much credit for it in their campaign speeches.

2. The problem with being young is that you don't have much sense of history. First, you're comparing a recession to a depression; that's just hyperbole. Second, the recession of the early 1990's was not exactly nasty. I know quite a few people who are unemployed right now, including my fiance. I don't know anyone who was unemployed during the early 90's recession. Jobs were relatively easy to get. In my mind, the late 70's seemed worse, but mostly because my dad's business was directly affected by escalating land prices.

Mates, the Republicans lower taxes and don't touch or increase spending, massively increasing the deficit.

Who is buying votes again?

mirdorr, don't be foolish. I publish a list of numbers and they want to apply spin to it. :(

The FoB and the EoB will fight each other to the bitter end. Best to leave them be.

The whole Democrat/Republican, Bush/Gore or Bush/Clinton or any Donkey/Elephant thing comes down to this:

Which is the lesser of 2 evils?

Thats right, when I go to the polls at each presidential election, I vote for the guy that I think will fuck up the least shit, the guy who will keep us out of the most trouble, the guy who is the lesser of the two shitbags.

I'm not a democrat, nor a republican, and no, that doesn't make me an Independent. So when yah argue about this president or that, just realize they have all done something worthwhile, some more than others. Almost every president I can think of was either a slimy character, or just plain dishonest. And just remember, our current president is just the same as the rest.

--A gun toting, church going, liberal, right-to-choose, blue collar worker.

Even (and this is a BIG even) if unemployment started up with Regan and Bush Sr. in office, Clinton had plenty of time to set it right. He was in office for what....eight years? If you ask me (and I know nobody did) he was too busy spending all the money on his mistresses and then having to buy his wife "I feel so guilty" presents. I'm not too fond of a person who is suppose to lead our country in an honest way, when he can't even be honest with is marriage vowes. All I have to say is "I'm glad he is no longer in office."

You assume Clinton's marriage wasn't a marriage of power/convenience. I never got the feeling that the two cared for each other.

I'm interested to see what's going to happen...the Republicans control pretty much everything ATM. It's gonna be hard to blame democrats when they can't set things straight.

What I see now is the Republicans doing everything they bashed the Democrats for over the last twenty years. Republicans don't call them "tax increases"...they prefer "fee increases." They actually had to pass a bill here in Texas (large republican majority) to limit tax assessments for houses in Harris county to 5% per year...they rose 9% last year. This bill to cap tax assessments failed in the republican led state capitol. Oh no...taxes don't go up when the Republicans are in charge =)

Then there's the great tax break Bush just passed to help out the American economy. This tax break gave you $400/child you had in your house. Bill passed...language was examined...end outcome...people making $10-$24k/year have been cut out of this plan. The people working the shittiest jobs (or just plain having trouble finding a good job like they could pre-GDub) got screwed out of this tax break. I consider that pay range to pretty much be the working poor.