So, whats wrong with Clinton?

[Perinquus]

And 90% of the voters are what? 50% of the american people?

Voting Popluas which is close to only 30%


Anyway what was wrong with Clinton as was asked eariler by Wong?

1. Gutting the Military, slashing Paychecks and Bugets, Cutting useful projects and funding worthless ones
2. Fucking over the Economey in 93 and 2000(He did not do anything when the Economey start heading south just so he could fuck up the next fellow in office) His Economey people acutal FALLSIFED Economic Data in True Soviet Fasion to make the Ecomeny of 2000 seem much better than it was
3. Sex Scandels all the way back to his Governer Days
4. Stealing American Tax-payer Dollers in various ways
5. Accepting Bribes or a the very least A total of Five Million Dollers in Tax Free Money, More than one hundred thousand dollers of which came from CHINA
6. Giving China the Technology to Hit America with ICBM's(He personaly oked US Company that sold the Tech to them)
7. Along with Carter he is Responsible for the North Korea Situation
8. Various fork up involving terrirosts inculding letting some go(Osama being the biggest example)


Thats a more complete list there Wong

Let's not forget Pardongate; obstructing the investigation of Vince Foster's death; renting out the Lincoln bedroom; making false statements about their financial status in order to set up a legal defense fund at taxpayer expense; dividing power in an unconstitutional manner (Hillary, who was not elected to any public office, assumed presidential power over the White House Counsel's Office, the Office of Domestic Policy, the Office of Presidential Personnel, and the Office of the Chief of Staff); illegal conduct of the Health Care Task Force (names of lobbyists, special interest groups and other participants were kept secret, and to maintain this a senior member of the task force provided false testimony under oath); Al Gore and the Buddhist Monastery money scheme; the politicizing of the FBI; disclosures of classified nuclear weaons information...

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

[Perinquus]

OM...eh, never mind... You are one of those "Ah, the golden years.." morons who pine after the '30 or something all the time. Has the though occured to you that more then just sex ed has changed since? BTW the level and quality of sex ed in the States blows big time.

[sarcasm]You know there was an age in America when you kept slaves and (gasp!) you had lower crime rates back then too.[/sarcasm]
I belief that this type of is thinking is called the 'Questionable Cause fallacy'.

And I believe your outrageous distortions of my argument and ascribing of such absurd motives to me is called the "Strawman Fallacy".

Let me ask you, if you had a fourteen year old daughter, would you be okay with her having sex as long as she used condoms?

I would rather provode with proper knowledge of sex, prophylactics and their uses so that I could be confident that IF she decides to have sex she will know how to protect herself. Rather then the just stick my head in the bush and hope that she doesn't have sex at all, like the "conservatives" like to do.

Wrong again. Lots of conservative are proactive in their role as parents. They keep themselves aware of what their kids are doing, and they clamp down on any misbehavior. My mother, for example, once caught my sister at home, alone with a boy from school when she was 15 years old, and had reason to believe, from other sources, that the two were considering getting it on. The boy had his shoes off, which actually gave my mother enough evidence to charge him with carnal knowledge. She didn't, but she told the boy's father she would if he ever came over to our house again (in Virginia you have up to a year to charge someone with a misdemeanor offense) she'd prosecute, grounded my sister, and forbade her to see him.

Well, my sister hated her for that - at the time. But unlike her best friend, Kerry did not get knocked up before graduation. She's now got a nice job, a good husband of 19 years, and a pretty nice life. Her friend Lynette, whose mother took that permissive approach you seem inclined to take, and trusted her teenage daughter to make an informed decision, is living in a rather run down part of town with 6 mouths to feed, since all her plans for the future got scuppered when she found herself in a family way at the age of 17.

Anecdotal I know, but a great illustration of what a responsible parent does, and it does not include keeping your kids ignorant and sticking your head in the bush; it includes supervising your child and being a parent and doing what's best for your kid, even when she doesn't appreciate it. And if they slip away and defy you, you impose an appropriate penalty and make 'em pay! I wonder if this approach hasn't lost favor because it actually requires the parents to spend some time supervising their kids and being fucking parents instead of trying to be their kids' best friends.

Despite your tendency to sneer, not all the old ways of doing things were bad.

But by all means, try it your way. Just have the good grace not to be surprised if you get to be the youngest grandad on your street.

[Sir Sirius]

I am, however, concerned that the kind of sex education people like Sir Sirius seem to be in favor of, i.e. teaching them all about intercourse, contraception, etc. without any apparent emphasis on the wisdom of abstinence is a poor approach; but it's one increasingly favored these days, because of the automatic assumption that it's useless to encourage kids to abstain until they are older and more mature.

I belief that it is the parents job to worry about such things, but the bigger concern is that teaching abstenance along side with sexual education makes the teacher look like a hypocrite and weakens the effect of sex ed. The difference here is that if you can teach only one of them I belief that sex ed (I don't consider teaching abstenance sex ed, it's more like No-sex ed) should be though, you seem to disagree.

Oh, and coming up with persuasive arquments to convince teenagers that they shouldn't have sex seems to be pretty damn difficult. The only thing I've ever heard is "Don't do it.", "You aren't ready yet." Etc. whether those are true or not, they aren't very effective on teens.

And if this approach aims to reduce the rates of teen pregnancy, it obviously isn't working.

For the second time now see-> link. It is not only the amount of sex ed given, but also the quality and nature of content of the sex ed given and recently teachers in the U.S. have been focusing more on "abstenance only" type of (non) sex ed. No wonder the teen pregnancy rates have been rising.

As for the rest of your post; you wen't from 'Comdom in a christmas tree' to 'celebrates a sexually active lifestyle' to 'effects impressionable kids' to 'teenagers start having intercourse earlier' to 'encourages risky behaviour' to 'teenage pregnancies increase'.

Can anyone say "Slippery slope fallacy"?

[Sir Sirius]

And I believe your outrageous distortions of my argument and ascribing of such absurd motives to me is called the "Strawman Fallacy".

Eh, you do realize that you are trying to counter the insult, not the arqument, right?

Wrong again. Lots of conservative are proactive in their role as parents.

Read above.

They keep themselves aware... <snipped to save spece> ...herself in a family way at the age of 17.

Nice story, but did your parents give you sex ed or/and did you receive sex ed in school? And what was/would have been the down side of them taeching sex ed? (by sex ed I mean theaching about prophylactics, STD's Etc. not just abstenance)

And what is "carnal knowledge", it sounds like a porno movie? And how can you charge someone with that? (This is a serious question.)

Anecdotal I know, but a great illustration of what a responsible parent does, and it does not include keeping your kids ignorant and sticking your head in the bush; it includes supervising your child and being a parent and doing what's best for your kid, even when she doesn't appreciate it. And if they slip away and defy you, you impose an appropriate penalty and make 'em pay!

Yeah, like I said it is the parents job to do these things.

I wonder if this approach hasn't lost favor because it actually requires the parents to spend some time supervising their kids and being fucking parents instead of trying to be their kids' best friends.

I think the problems run a bit deeper then that. With the number of working mothers nowadays there are kids out there that are practicaly being raised by kinderkardens. There are parents that are "parents" only in that they have succeeded in procreating. Etc. However non of this detracts from the value of sex education, quite the opposite infact.

But by all means, try it your way. Just have the good grace not to be surprised if you get to be the youngest grandad on your street.

Funny, those methods worked fine on me, my brother, eleven cousins and well most people my age I know. Anecdotal, I know, but well...

[Perinquus]

And I believe your outrageous distortions of my argument and ascribing of such absurd motives to me is called the "Strawman Fallacy".

Eh, you do realize that you are trying to counter the insult, not the arqument, right?

No, just pointing out that you're sneering comments about my pining away for the "good old days" are a strawman distortion; I never said any such thing, nor do I think that.

Nice story, but did your parents give you sex ed or/and did you receive sex ed in school? And what was/would have been the down side of them taeching sex ed? (by sex ed I mean theaching about prophylactics, STD's Etc. not just abstenance)

I'm not sure what she got taught in school (she went to public school, I got sent to private, since my mother was unsatisfied with the education Kerry got), though I learned about all those things. The difference is, my mother was not about to leave it up to us whether or not we had sex at that age. She exercised control to prevent it. As I said, my sister hated her for it at the time. Today, now that Kerry is a 40 year old adult, she and my mother can be gal pals, but back then, Mom didn't hesitate to be a parent first, and the kind of parent who enforced discipline and "tough love".

And what is "carnal knowledge", it sounds like a porno movie? And how can you charge someone with that? (This is a serious question

There is no statutory rape charge in the Commonwealth of Virginia (bizarre, I know, but that's the fact). You can, however, charge someone with having carnal knowldge of a minor. It really amounts to just a different name for basically the same thing.

I wonder if this approach hasn't lost favor because it actually requires the parents to spend some time supervising their kids and being fucking parents instead of trying to be their kids' best friends.

I think the problems run a bit deeper then that. With the number of working mothers nowadays there are kids out there that are practicaly being raised by kinderkardens. There are parents that are "parents" only in that they have succeeded in procreating. Etc. However non of this detracts from the value of sex education, quite the opposite infact.

My mother got dovorced from my Dad when I was five. She raised us pretty much on her own, yet she still found the time to work and be a parent involved in the upbringing of her children.

But by all means, try it your way. Just have the good grace not to be surprised if you get to be the youngest grandad on your street.

Funny, those methods worked fine on me, my brother, eleven cousins and well most people my age I know. Anecdotal, I know, but well...

Well, if I ever have kids of my own, especially daughters, I'll do it my mother's way. As a cop I see too many teenage mothers. The first girl I ever had a crush on went on to get knocked up in the 12th grade (had the baby after graduation). Another girl I was sweet on when I was a senior, and who was planning to try an work as a model (and she was good looking enough, let me tell you!), ended up changing her plans when she got herself impregnated at the age of 17 as well. Not too many swimwear models out there with stretch marks, so she had to readjust her goals.

The day will come when you've got to turn them loose and trust them, and if you've done your job as a parent, then hopefully they will have both the knowledge and the sense of responsibility to keep themselves out of trouble. But when they are still junior high and high school students, that's the time to keep control and exercise parental authority. You can try the other way, and I'm sure it works sometimes, but I think it's more likely to fail, and if it does, the consequences will be dire and far reaching.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

To conclude my involvement in this thread (unless, of course, someone wants to flame me for this conclusions...)

1. Clinton was a thief, a liar, and obstructed investigations of his illegal activities in both these themes.

2. George Bush, Sr. or Jr., is a red herring, completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Bush's flaws, either Bush, in no way alter or expunge Clinton's flaws. In fact, the stereotype of the dishonest politician is not applicable to this subject. Even if we accept the conventional wisdom that "all politicians are crooks," that does not give any politician license to be a crook.

3. We are not here to convict the Clintons. We are here to discuss what was wrong with them. "Wrong" being a moral judgment, and moral judgments varying from individual to individual, we are dealing in individual opinion. Opinions are not always based on hard evidence, and opinions are based on emotional reactions as often as evidentiary reasoning.

Unless anyone has a problem with the above statements, or a question for me personally, I'm done in this thread. I'd also like to request an apology from Durandal. We were both slipping a little in our fallacies, Durandal, and although it may seem thin-skinned of me, I think you were out of line with the insults. I've said my piece. That's all.

[Darth Wong]

To conclude my involvement in this thread (unless, of course, someone wants to flame me for this conclusions...)

1. Clinton was a thief, a liar, and obstructed investigations of his illegal activities in both these themes.

Clinton was indeed a liar who abused his position for personal gain (not that this is unusual for a politician). The investigations, on the other hand, were bullshit. They produced nothing but lurid sex talk, and they tried. Oh fuck, did they ever try, burning up vast amounts of taxpayers' money in the process.

2. George Bush, Sr. or Jr., is a red herring, completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Bush's flaws, either Bush, in no way alter or expunge Clinton's flaws. In fact, the stereotype of the dishonest politician is not applicable to this subject. Even if we accept the conventional wisdom that "all politicians are crooks," that does not give any politician license to be a crook.

True. It was, however, relevant in the sense that, having failed to establish that Clinton was doing anything remarkable for a politician, the next move was to compare him unfavourably to Bush. If someone tries to show what's wrong with Clinton by saying he was soooo much worse than Bush, then Bush is relevant in a rebuttal to that point.

3. We are not here to convict the Clintons. We are here to discuss what was wrong with them. "Wrong" being a moral judgment, and moral judgments varying from individual to individual, we are dealing in individual opinion. Opinions are not always based on hard evidence, and opinions are based on emotional reactions as often as evidentiary reasoning.

Opinions by themselves are worthless. That's why I insist on proof of material harm from supposed wrongdoings such as that ridiculously overblown condom issue before I can consider it proof of immorality. Moral "principles" which divest themselves of any requirement to show victimhood or material harm are the stuff of fundies.

Clinton abused his position for personal gain. This is a substantive accusation, albeit not one that necessarily makes Clinton unusual among presidents or politicians. The rest smells like a steaming pile of bullshit and puritanism to me.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

To conclude my involvement in this thread (unless, of course, someone wants to flame me for this conclusions...)

1. Clinton was a thief, a liar, and obstructed investigations of his illegal activities in both these themes.

Clinton was indeed a liar who abused his position for personal gain (not that this is unusual for a politician). The investigations, on the other hand, were bullshit. They produced nothing but lurid sex talk, and they tried. Oh fuck, did they ever try, burning up vast amounts of taxpayers' money in the process.

In fact, I agree with you that the investigations were fruitless and ultimately a waste of time and money. However, the value of the investigations is irrelevant to my statement. My statement here is merely that Clinton interfered with those investigations. And again I reiterate that politicians abuse of power for personal gain may be common, but that does not make the abuse acceptable. Clinton may have committed an offense common to all politicians, but the fact is that it is still an offense of which he is guilty.

2. George Bush, Sr. or Jr., is a red herring, completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread. Bush's flaws, either Bush, in no way alter or expunge Clinton's flaws. In fact, the stereotype of the dishonest politician is not applicable to this subject. Even if we accept the conventional wisdom that "all politicians are crooks," that does not give any politician license to be a crook.

True. It was, however, relevant in the sense that, having failed to establish that Clinton was doing anything remarkable for a politician, the next move was to compare him unfavourably to Bush. If someone tries to show what's wrong with Clinton by saying he was soooo much worse than Bush, then Bush is relevant in a rebuttal to that point.[/quote]

And whoever engaged in the initial red herring by introducing Bush into the discussion should receive all due scorn. However, if I recall correctly, I have never done so, and certainly have not done so in this thread.

3. We are not here to convict the Clintons. We are here to discuss what was wrong with them. "Wrong" being a moral judgment, and moral judgments varying from individual to individual, we are dealing in individual opinion. Opinions are not always based on hard evidence, and opinions are based on emotional reactions as often as evidentiary reasoning.

Opinions by themselves are worthless. That's why I insist on proof of material harm from supposed wrongdoings such as that ridiculously overblown condom issue before I can consider it proof of immorality. Moral "principles" which divest themselves of any requirement to show victimhood or material harm are the stuff of fundies.

Clinton abused his position for personal gain. This is a substantive accusation, albeit not one that necessarily makes Clinton unusual among presidents or politicians. The rest smells like a steaming pile of bullshit and puritanism to me.[/quote]

Ordinary, I would accept this point; however, as I mentioned, the question, "What is wrong with Clinton?" invited opinion. I would surmise from that that, while opinions are worthless in a court of law, opinions are what the originator of this thread was seeking, and he has been provided them.

[Coyote]

Wasn't it Loral and Hughes Aerospace that Clinton authorized to hand over to the Chinese all the info they needed to make a MIRV-capable ICBM?

He also authorized the "peace-for-bribery" with North Korea... which gave nuclear technology to Pakistan... and cruise missile tech to such bastions of freedom as Iran...

I believe he also made the US Navy's underwater mapping technology, a boon to submarine navigation, to the Chinese...

I'd say play ing games like that-- opening up the US populace to nuclear attack-- qualifies him as a "bad president"... or at least a "President of minor concern".

Why does everyobe feel so compelled to apologize and spin for this dog?