And Now For The Down Sides by David Horowitz - Page 2




 
--
Boots
 
January 23rd, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Well perhaps the media would have showed Bush a little more compassion had he not started a war that had already been deemed unnecessary.
The man is out of office already. You should be happy about that. But I suspect that the shoe will now be on the other foot as you will have to defend the policies of PBOB to the conservatives.
January 23rd, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieMSG
The man is out of office already. You should be happy about that. But I suspect that the shoe will now be on the other foot as you will have to defend the policies of PBOB to the conservatives.
The man is out of office, but the damage he created is done. Its going to a LOOOONG time to fully expunge the mess he created, probably longer than a two-term Obama Administration. A decade at least is my guess.
January 23rd, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
The man is out of office, but the damage he created is done. Its going to a LOOOONG time to fully expunge the mess he created, probably longer than a two-term Obama Administration. A decade at least is my guess.
We can say the same thing about BJ Clinton. I think that we are going to hear a lot more about "stuff" that Clinton, his foundation and his wife are going to do to sell the country down the river.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-stock-buyer/

Lets look at some of the donors to the Clinton Foundation who might want to have influence with the sitting secretary of state.
I'll keep it to just governements
$1M-$5M
Oman
Brunei
Taiwan
Quatar
Kuwait

$5M-$10M
Norway

$10M-$25M
Saudi Arabia
Dominican Republic (through COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico)

Can YOU SAY CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
--
Boots
January 23rd, 2009  
WNxRogue
 
 
I was under the impression that the Clinton foundation was a charitable organization. So how exactly would who donated to it create a conflict of interest?

As in, how exactly does Hillary Clinton benefit from donations to her husband's charity?
January 23rd, 2009  
HokieMSG
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WNxRogue
I was under the impression that the Clinton foundation was a charitable organization. So how exactly would who donated to it create a conflict of interest?

As in, how exactly does Hillary Clinton benefit from donations to her husband's charity?
The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation was setup by her husband. It has over the years, recieved significant donataions from foreign countries. In her role as secretary of state, she is supposed to represent the interests of the US. It can be considered a conflict of interest for her because if foreign countries continue to donate, the impression of impropriety may be inferred. The minute she supports a decision that is beneficial to a country that has donated to her husbands foundation, her motivation may be called into question.
New ethics rules have been put into place. But the final approving authority to allow or disallow these types of donations rests with Hillary herself. I would feel much more comfortable about this if she recused herself from foreign policy decisions where a conflict might exist. This however would limit or reduce her effectiveness as Sec State. If I was the president, I never would have considered her for Sec State. Maybe something domestic like HHS (Health and Human Services.).
January 23rd, 2009  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by HokieMSG
The William Jefferson Clinton Foundation was setup by her husband. It has over the years, recieved significant donataions from foreign countries. In her role as secretary of state, she is supposed to represent the interests of the US. It can be considered a conflict of interest for her because if foreign countries continue to donate, the impression of impropriety may be inferred. The minute she supports a decision that is beneficial to a country that has donated to her husbands foundation, her motivation may be called into question.
New ethics rules have been put into place. But the final approving authority to allow or disallow these types of donations rests with Hillary herself. I would feel much more comfortable about this if she recused herself from foreign policy decisions where a conflict might exist. This however would limit or reduce her effectiveness as Sec State. If I was the president, I never would have considered her for Sec State. Maybe something domestic like HHS (Health and Human Services.).
Wow, is this ever a lot of bull. This is like saying if a guy gives me money so I can give it to a friend, and then murders someone, I'm going to stick up for him at a trial. Give Hillary more credit than that.

First off, the long-term effects of the Clinton administration were felt. The 90s was very prosperous, as was the early 2000s. Even 9/11 could not slow down the economy, which turned while Bush was in office, based on the deregulated puzzle pieces his Republican Congress set into place.

Why can't we just accept what's going on and try to work our way out of the sh*thole we're in.
January 23rd, 2009  
AeolusDallas
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
Wow, is this ever a lot of bull. This is like saying if a guy gives me money so I can give it to a friend, and then murders someone, I'm going to stick up for him at a trial. Give Hillary more credit than that.

First off, the long-term effects of the Clinton administration were felt. The 90s was very prosperous, as was the early 2000s. Even 9/11 could not slow down the economy, which turned while Bush was in office, based on the deregulated puzzle pieces his Republican Congress set into place.

Why can't we just accept what's going on and try to work our way out of the sh*thole we're in.
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
January 23rd, 2009  
The Other Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeolusDallas
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
If not having enough retirement was the problem, I could see that. But it's not.
January 23rd, 2009  
AeolusDallas
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Other Guy
If not having enough retirement was the problem, I could see that. But it's not.
The problem is not savings. its financial gridlock. Financial gridlock was exactly what economists said would happen once the baby boomers started retiring. Boomers cashing in all those ira's and a population slump in the generation folowing them.
January 24th, 2009  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeolusDallas
I don't think Bush or the republicans can really be blamed for the economic troubles of today any more than the Democrats should get credit for the boom in the 90's. The economy is cyclical. We were due a downturn. Hell for the last 20 years economists have warned that in the early 21st century when all the Baby boomers start to retire that the economy would tank. The boomers simply did not have enough kids early enough in life to pay for their retirement.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The answer is YES to both. YES, the economy is cyclical, and YES by effected by outside sources.

The economy is like a river, it has its ebbs and flows, sometimes it can run fast, sometimes it runs slow. BUT you can also effect river artificially as well. You can divert it, you can dam it, etc...

In terms of the economy think the same way. For example is if you give two HUGE tax cuts to Millionaires, then run up TRILLIONS of debt, then push vast deregulation so that every dishonest SOB can milk the system dry without scrutiny, you Import for more than you Export, you buy things on credit, and then get yourself involved in not one but 2 very expensive military conflicts, all of this is going to have a direct an immediate negative effect on the economy.

HokieMSG

I don't see the relation you are drawing between what Bush did as Office as POTUS and what Bill Clinton did with his charitable foundation that was setup after he was out of office.

Nor is their a conflict of interest AS LONG AS, The Clinton Organization doesnt accept any more foreign contributions while Hillary is Sec of State. Which they said they won't. The GOP in Congress looked specifically at this issue, asked Hillary about it and confirmed her with only 2 objections. I am sure Hillary hasnt gained much popularity in the GOP, but for them not to make a fuss was because their was nothing to this.