The Clintons are back?!

[Mad Scientist]

For you conspiracy theorists who have been pondering a question in your heads, ponder no more, for that question has been answered.

It's official: The Clintons STILL aren't gone yet. And now they're asking the government to pay them fees.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020727/ts_nm/clinton_fees_dc_3

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Damn Straight, now let's see Bill get his own talk show so we can all laugh when it fails, but then stop to realise that because he's not an entertainer the only thing he did was make more money that he doesn't need.

[gtracer72]

Bill should pay us for puttingup with his crap for eight years, and Hillary should leave the face of this earth :mad: .

[The Flash]

Originally posted by Chris Sanders MSX
Damn Straight, now let's see Bill get his own talk show so we can all laugh when it fails, but then stop to realise that because he's not an entertainer the only thing he did was make more money that he doesn't need.

LOL! That's so true. ...Good ole Slick... :rolleyes:

[Joe Tully]

Please try to keep your comments to the topic of the article. While thoughtful criticism usually leads to intelligent discussion on these boards, random Clinton bashing will almost certainly lead to a flame war.

[The Penguin]

I guess I don't see why any president, Clinton or otherwise should be reimbursed by the taxpayers for legal fees from an investigation that was no doubt warranted (otherwise it wouldn't have happened at all). To add to that the "precedents" they are referring to in order to validate getting this cash back were both less than 1 million dollars and yet Bill and Hillary want 3.5 million?! :eek: I'm sorry, but that's too much from a couple that both have multi-million dollar book deals and whatever the Presidential pension is. :rolleyes:

[Trent Lane]

Clinton's got an attention deficiet dissorder? Geez, no one's talked about him for months, so he decides to make his own news... him and Michael Jackson in on this idea together? :p

[Pilmedium]

What I don't understand is why they are asking for that much money. What happened that would be worthy of such a large payment?

[Mad Scientist]

Okay, here's another article about Mr. Clinton that just arrived today.

First, he's asking the government for legal fees, and NOW he's thrashing Bush, Jr. for corporate fraud. SAY WHAT?!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&ncid=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020728/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton_bush_2

[ZorBrak]

Clinton and his Husband ar eboth money power hungry losers. Random bashing may not be approved of but with all the Bush bashing I see I'm gonna speak my mind! peace!

[Barb Gordon]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Loads of people don't like Bush, or Clinton, or a mess of other politicians. But talking about them shouldn't involve bashing them or just talking trash about them. You can discuss views you disagree or agree with, but simple saying "I hate this guy", or girl for that matter, is unnecessary and not desired around the boards.

~Barb

[VashTheStampede]

Would saying "Clinton is the worst US president since Carter" constitute bashing? I'm not saying that but if I were to say it would it be bashing? :D

[Barb Gordon]

well, if that's all that was in a post, it would be more or less just bashing that person, who is in this case Clinton. Now, maybe if you gave some examples of why he's the worst since Carter, that would be a much better post for everyone. You're stating your personal opinion, but you can also back it up.

~Barb

[Trent Lane]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Would saying "Clinton is the worst US president since Carter" constitute bashing?

well, if that's all that was in a post, it would be more or less just bashing that person, who is in this case Clinton. Now, maybe if you gave some examples of why he's the worst since Carter, that would be a much better post for everyone. You're stating your personal opinion, but you can also back it up.

SO if you back that up with "He made a mockery of the presidency and our country with his oval office blunders", we're cool? And I do mean that. Clinton coming out and bashing Bush is pretty low. This guy really is desperate for attention... unfortunately, he's somewhat getting it :mad:

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Trent Lane




SO if you back that up with "He made a mockery of the presidency and our country with his oval office blunders", we're cool? And I do mean that. Clinton coming out and bashing Bush is pretty low. This guy really is desperate for attention... unfortunately, he's somewhat getting it :mad:

I don't know, the term "mockery" in this case is kinda subjective. I disapprove of some of the things he did while he was in office, but in the midst of that stuff, you'd hear about his approval ratings just going up and up. If most people felt that he was a mockery, I'd expect them to be going down. As far as his comments on Bush go, I don't see why it's uncalled for. His points at least sound valid, and it seems like part of the reason why he's speaking up is because White House officials are blaming him for the current corporate scandals. Even if Clinton is guilty of helping cause the scandals, which is unclear at this point, he at least has a right to defend himself. I'm looking forward to the response from the White House, but I'm not sure that this can be easily blamed on one administration. It's more than likely that at least the current and last ones had some hand in it.

[James]

Listen to Joe dudes.

Just on the basis of the article, and not on political accuracy, it seems Clinton is refuting remarks made by the Bush administration. No one is slinging mud. Bush and co have made remarks about Clinton and co which Clinton is addressing. Whether you agree with the remarks is another thing..

I think that is quite clear within the article. Everyone, please read the articles before jumping to the same conclusion as everyone else!!! :)

[The Flash]

Well, I don't see much wrong with the comments in this thread. Sure, there are a couple that might be out of line, but there were also a couple in some Bush threads a little while back. Because of the comments in those threads, I decided to stop reading their threads. Simple as that. I saw quite a few "Bush gives off a dumb image" type remarks... Again, I don't see much anything wrong with what people said here.

EDIT: I just went back and skimmed through those Bush threads. A lot of it pisses me off, which I will not get into because this isn't the right place to talk about it... I guess it's okay to compare Bush to an ape, but heaven for bid you call Clinton a bad leader? This is ridiculous.

[Joe Tully]

Flash, the problem that I had, and I think that Barb had,
with some of the posts in this thread as opposed to the Bush criticism (http://forums.toonzone.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41363&highlight=bush+criticism) thread is that, besides the fact that this was starting to stray off-topic, in the Bush thread, things had a more sophisticated tone. People discussed how they felt about Bush and, more importantly, why, whether that was in a positive or negative way. When you do that, it allows for some good discussion and differences of opinion without resorting to "Yes he is" or "No he isn't" arguments, which basically become bickering very quickly. I think that it would be great to see a thread similar to the Bush Criticism one about Clinton. It would certainly be an interesting read.

[Karkull]

Good for the Clintons! Why shouldn't they have access to reimbursements that Reagan and Bush got? And why shouldn't Clinton stick up for himself when the current political leaders bash him and his administration? You can't condemn a man for telling the truth.

Clinton may not have been the most honest President (he wasn't), but he certainly appears to get nailed for a lot more than his Republican counterparts do, and they're just as dirty. Nobody in politics is clean.

[Trent Lane]

Originally posted by The Flash
EDIT: I just went back and skimmed through those Bush threads. A lot of it pisses me off, which I will not get into because this isn't the right place to talk about it... I guess it's okay to compare Bush to an ape, but heaven for bid you call Clinton a bad leader? This is ridiculous.

*thumbs up to Flash* Right on, man, what goes for one goes for all...

[VashTheStampede]

Clinton may not have been the most honest President (he wasn't), but he certainly appears to get nailed for a lot more than his Republican counterparts do, and they're just as dirty. Nobody in politics is clean.
Believe it or not that is not true. Not everbody in politics is dirty. That is just an argumenet lazy people use when they don't want to vote. And REagan and Bush never recieved money to cover legal fees.

[Karkull]

Originally posted by VashTheStampede
Believe it or not that is not true. Not everbody in politics is dirty. That is just an argumenet lazy people use when they don't want to vote. And REagan and Bush never recieved money to cover legal fees.

Allow me to directly quote the first article posted on this thread:

"As explicitly authorized by the statute, and following the precedent set by presidents Reagan and Bush, the Clintons have applied for reimbursement of their legal fees incurred in connection with the Independent Counsel's Whitewater investigation," Kendall said in a statement...Reagan was awarded $562,000 by a federal court in 1996, while Bush received $272,300 in reimbursed legal fees.

Thank you.

As for the other comment, I apologize. What I meant to type was that almost everyone involved in politics is corrupt. I'm sure there are a few who are virtuous and clean, but I'm sure that they are few and far between. And I do vote.

[VashTheStampede]

I'm sorry for missing that part of the article. Now if he was asking for $500,000 I wouldn't have as much as a problem with it, but $3.5 million is a bit outrageous.

[Sandro]

You can't condemn a man for telling the truth.

Clinton, telling the truth?! The same guy who campaigned for tax cuts and actually raised taxes when he was reelected?! The guy who lied under oath?!

Clinton may not have been the most honest President (he wasn't), but he certainly appears to get nailed for a lot more than his Republican counterparts do, and they're just as dirty.

You wonder why he gets nailed more? See above. The man lied too much. I don't think he deserves any money.