Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bill Clinton"

Revision as of 01:03, July 23, 2009

Citation needed for segment claiming "Bill clinton used arkansas state policemen to solicit women outside marriage"

I am going to have to rewrite this article for obvious reasons.Geo. 00:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Too even-handed?McTavidge 22:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I tend to think that the fact that the article claims that Clinton was impeached isn't greatly even-handed. I'm a conservative like any other person with reasonable political ideals, but I think we're sort of stretching credibility with this one. Karalius Nyder 22:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, my apologies - he was impeached! I need to brush up on my American politics. Karalius Nyder 00:45, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Article name

I see my attempt at balancing this article was hastily deleted...

Yes, because your link entry was no help to the article at all. Jallen ^talk 11:15, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Ok, does this make sense to have as William Jefferson Clinton when he was known as Bill Clinton? I don't think that anyone seriously would move Julias Caesar to Gaius Julius Caesar or Plutarch to Mestrius Plutarchus and I don't see how these are substantially different. JoshuaZ 21:12, 5 March 2007 (EST)

White House website says: William J. Clinton

Columbia Encyclopedia says: Bill Clinton

Encarta says: Bill Clinton

Britannica says: Bill Clinton

American Heritage Dictionary says: Clinton, William Jefferson

Clinton Library is: William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum

Gale's Biography Research Center says:

Bill Clinton

(American president, 1946-)

Also known as: William Jefferson Clinton, William J. Clinton, William Clinton, William Jefferson Blythe

and includes

"Bill Clinton," in American Decades 1990-1999. Tandy McConnell, ed. Detroit: Gale Group, Inc., 2001.

"Bill Clinton," in Current Leaders of Nations. Gale Research, 1998.

"Bill Clinton," in Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2nd ed. 17 Vols. Gale Research, 1998.

"Bill Clinton," in Newsmakers. Cumulation issue. Gale Research, 1992. (A profile of the individual's personal life, career, and newsworthy achievements.)

"William Jefferson Clinton", in Contemporary Authors Online.

"Bill Clinton," in Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Volume 6: World Leaders, 10th ed. Gale Group, 2001.

I've moved the article to "Bill Clinton" and created redirects for all the other forms of the name.

Dpbsmith 21:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Impeached?

From everything I've learned, Bill Clinton didn't get impeached. He was on the verge of being impeached and resigned. Article needs to be fixed if thats the case.

I think you're thinking of Richard Nixon. Clinton _was_ impeached, but went on with running the country anyway. --BDobbs 23:55, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

• Impeachment is a term not for removal, but for a vote of trial. President Clinton was impeached, and put on trial. He was not convicted. President Clinton was convicted in another matter, of a Felony. He lost his law license because of that perjury conviction. President Nixon was threatened with Impeachment, but never was there a vote, or trial. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Bill Clinton was convicted of a felony? cite, please? He gave up his law license and paid a $25,000 fine to the Arkansas bar in exchange for no criminal charges being filed.^[1]. It's not exactly scot-free or exoneration, but it's also not a felony conviction. -- Jtl 03:59, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, one step ahead, it seems. He essentially pleaded "Nolo Contendre", and for doing so, was spared the humilation of being convicted. Sorry for my inexcuseable error in mistating a conviction, when on a technicality, he really wasn't. [1]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a disciplinary action never before taken against a sitting U.S. president, an Arkansas Supreme Court panel has filed suit to strip Bill Clinton of his license to practice law

"The conduct of Mr. Clinton ... was motivated by a desire to protect himself from the embarrassment of his own conduct," the Arkansas State Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct declared in its five-page lawsuit, filed on Friday at about 3:45 p.m. (4:45 p.m. EDT) with the Pulaski County Circuit Court clerk in Little Rock.[2]

--~ TK ^MyTalk 04:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

As far as I can tell, he didn't plead nolo contendre either, because there weren't any charges filed. Your quote isn't about a plea; it isn't even about charges being filed. It's about a lawsuit being filed. Civil cases aren't criminal. Lawsuits being filed aren't lawsuits being decided. Agreements to avoid charges aren't convictions, or guilty pleas, or even nolo contendre pleas.

In your mind, was Rush Limbaugh convicted of a felony in the oxycontin case? He paid a fine and agreed to drug testing for some number of years in exchange for charges not being filed. --Jtl 04:15, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• What a throughly mean spirited and nasty person you must be. Let it go. I admitted my mistake. What has happened to you in your life to make you this way? I don't condone anyone in the public eye getting treatment others wouldn't get. It is no matter if its Clinton or Limbaugh, and that should be obvious. That you thought I would condone Limbaugh's illegal activities, and not Clinton's speaks to your mind-set. --~ TK ^MyTalk 04:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

And that you would assume I thought knew the answer to my honest question speaks to yours. --Jtl 04:23, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Bin Laden

This article goes to great lengths to link the rise of Bin Laden to Clinton, but the old blighter doesn't get a mention in the article on Dubya. Why so? (Need I ask!) Mralph72 08:51, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

On that note, I'd like to ask why the Clinton page mentions minor, inaccurate statements but the page on our current president doesn't even mention a blemish on his presidential career. While Wikipedia articles do contain vandalism, their sysops do an excellent job at controlling it. Why can't we really be fair and unlock all the pages, and simply make our moderators do their job? --Aurum 08:42, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Saying its 'innaccurate" doesn't make it so; the page is locked precisely to prevent the type of vandalism you are suggesting of inserting innaccurate statements.

BTW, what did Sandy Burglar do with all those documents, and why? Rob Smith 11:19, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Impeachment quote

it is totally unclear where "they have made promiscuous use of it" is supposed to fit in - maybe someone knows? PFoster 17:21, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

The Senate subsequently voted to acquit Clinton.

Having this follow the bit about Flynt makes it look as though there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the offer and the acquittal. That may be the case, and it may be nothing more than an interesting coincidence. If it is the case, a charge of that gravity would need to be backed up with a reference, according to the C-pedia rules. PFoster 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

Really? You suppose was cause-and-effect between Flynt blackmailing Senators for private conduct & Jim Jeffords jumping parties in 2001? RobS 14:46, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

I have no idea, nor do I really care. My point is that the way the article is phrased IMPLIES a relationship without documenting it. You want that kind of implication to be on this website without any sort of evidence, that's fine by me. PFoster 14:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Let's look at the contrast; without it, the implication is the impeachment charges were all bogus and without foundation, and Clinton was somehow victimized. Whereas the historical record shows, Clinton defenders were quit upfront about using blackmail & a "scorched earth" policy to defend Clinton, and even went so far as naming names. Clinton defenders for example publicly claimed they had evidence of homosexual activity by Trent Lott in his college days, and judging by Lotts reaction to the House Impeachment as reported by House Judiciary Committee Councel David Schippers, [3] it's up to the reader to decide why the evidence in the Clinton Impeachment case was buried. RobS 15:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

So much for discussion, I guess. Look - if C-pedia wants to make the association between Flynt's seedy offer and the Senate's ruling a part of the article (an association which is about as subtle as a banjo as it's phrased here), so be it. At least edit it it so as to have the House and Senate results follow each other instead of being in separate paragraphs...and to spell "acquit" properly.

PFoster 00:07, 15 July 2007 (EDT).

These are the facts: (1) Stephanoplous & Carville made public statements that others would be outed if Clinton was impeached; (2) Larry Flynt, an old frined of Carville and of Clinton's college roommate at George Washington University, Strobe Talbott, publicly and in a high profile manner interfered with a Consitutional process by offering reward money for blackmail information, never mind if the information was true or not, and stated exactly why he did so; (3) the Senate voted to acquit. (4) Stephanoplous, Carville, Flynt, Clinton, and every Senator who voted to acquit is just going to have to live with those facts. RobS 21:13, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Cocaine allegation

We need a source for the cocaine allegation. DanH 12:22, 7 September 2007 (EDT)

"Cruise missiles to manipulate opinion polls"

That section title is misleading as it points toward suspicions but not hard evidence. The body of the section need not be changed but I would like to move that they section be retitled something like: "Cruise missile controversy".

Clinton and Gay Bomb?

What does some unnamed researcher's (denied) request for funding for a ridiculous project have to do with an encyclopedia article about Clinton? Will we also include any silly idea spawned during the Bush era in the GWB article? Or do you honestly think that no researcher ever requested money for another silly project since Bush became President? This and the "See also: Gay Bomb" link will only make CP look foolish, I think.

Seriously, guys, the link between Clinton and the Gay Bomb is nothing more than "Clinton happened to be in power while somebody way lower in the chain had a dumb idea that got rejected by the Defense Department. Chances are he never even saw this request." --Jenkins 19:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

• "See Also"'s may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject, Jenkins. Think of them as further reading material, in the same general category. Like the Reagan article, see Conservative Links, which may or may not include links to personalities and/or organizations Reagan might well have detested. --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

While I silently disagree with the driving logic, I'm willing to accept it and thus the existence of the "See also: Gay Bomb" part. However, the explicit paragraph in the article itself does look extremely out of place, with or without the "See also" section. --Jenkins 19:40, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Right. Just as Reagan just happened to be in power when the AIDS epidemic hit; only in that case, I do not think funding was denied. Nonetheless, we never stop hearing the end of it (See Liberal hate speech, Gay Reagan is Dead). Rob Smith 20:21, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Erm... let's see... the term "AIDS" appears 0 times in Ronald Reagan. Any of the words "Acquired", "Immune", "Deficiency" (or "Immunodeficiency"), or "Syndrome" appear 0 times in the article. "HIV" or "virus" appear 0 times. "Epidemic" appears 0 times. "Disease" appears only in the Alzheimer context. ("Gay" appears 0 times, too.) I also read over the article, and couldn't find any reference to it.

At the same time, our AIDS article makes no mention of Reagan, instead saying that it "was first recognized in the early 1980s". Compare this with Gay Bomb, where you inserted the "proposed during the Clinton era" bit even though all linked sources/references simply say "in 1994".

I'm not sure what point you wanted to make, but it looks a lot like mine: "It's just something that happened while the guy was President, but he was not directly involved. So what is this doing in his article?" In fact, this proposal most likely never made it all the way up to Clinton since it was rejected early on. So if anything, the Gay Bomb is even less connected to Clinton than AIDS is connected to Reagan. --Jenkins 11:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes, that's all very interesting. One wonders why, if AIDS is not exclusively a homosexual disease, why to this day are gay activists and gay activists organizations the only ones who criticize Reagan for not mentioning the term "AIDS"? And again, Reagan funded AIDS research, whereas Clinton promoted homosexual causes, and in doing so could have prevented the 9/11 attacks by dropping a gay bomb on Afghan terrorists camps. But he appears to have failed. Rob Smith 12:49, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

You're dragging this discussion further and further away from the actual point, Rob. Please point out to me where Bill Clinton had any direct influence on the Gay Bomb (...and please tell me that your "Gay Bomb could have prevented 9/11" thing is just a sick joke of yours).

Here is what the FOX News source says (emphasis mine):

Funny, no mention of the President being involved in any way!

The Gay Bomb has absolutely no connection to Bill Clinton (aside from your opinion about what he could have or should have done about it). It is completely off-topic in an article about Bill Clinton, and by now I almost assume it serves as some sort of smear-by-association by trying to link Clinton to an absolutely ridiculous proposal made by some researcher. Please prove me wrong and remove it. --Jenkins 13:05, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Similiar to Venona project; Truman had no knowledge of it, yet it is integral to his Administration, the history of his times, and everything that resulted from his decision making thereafter, with or without his knowledge of Venona. Rob Smith 13:26, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person and thus should be mentioned in his concise encyclopedia article?

I must also note your inability to stay focused on the here and now. I start discussing one issue connected to one person, and you immediately swerve to Reagan and Truman, citing things that had significantly more impact than one of undoubtedly countless silly proposals made while Clinton happened to be in charge.

Are you seriously basing your Clinton/Bomb connection on your unsourced and unprovable opinion that it could have prevented 9/11 and that thus, the refusal by the Defense Department becomes his failure as President?

And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone? If you answer only one question, please answer that last one. Then I could write this off as a lost cause and move on. --Jenkins 13:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

<--

• In other words: Any decision made at any level in any department in the administration automatically is directly connected to the President in person

• Comment: Just like the Watergate breakin, (a) it wasn't even done by a government agency, and (b) Nixon had no prior knowledge. However I don't think we will ever undo the damage done to Nixon's reputation, then or now, by alleged scholarly, reputable, and journalistic sources who seem to ignore this fact. Rob Smith 13:43, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

[selfquote] And am I right in assuming that you'll continue to refuse addressing the points at hand and instead drag me across US History until I give up and leave you alone? [/selfquote]

I'll take that as a "Yes", then... --Jenkins 13:48, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

• Am I right in assuming Bill Clinton was an imcometent idiot without a clue as to what was going on in his administration? particulalry as it pertains to national security? I though he was the smartest person to ever walk the planet? I thought having him as First Lady is our only hope of survival of the human species? Why, what you are saying tends to make me think we're being decieved..... Rob Smith 14:33, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you're focusing on the right person. That's a good start! Now, if you could focus a bit on why you included the Gay Bomb in the Clinton article, we'd make actual progress!

Replying to your post in order:

• I don't know if he is/was an idiot or not. That's not the issue here, though.
• National Security might be a remote issue if there was proof that he had any influence here, but the articles only say that "the Defense Department" rejected it and that the interviewed officials called it a dumb idea, so it's reasonable to assume that it also would've been rejected without Clinton being President, I'd say. So unless you show that Clinton hired the guy who ended up rejecting it (which would be an indirect link and still not enough to merit being mentioned in the Clinton article in my eyes), it's not the issue here. It might become an issue if you managed to prove that the Gay Bomb (1) would have worked as advertised, (2) would have been ready by 2001, (3) would have been deployed to take out terror camps (Why didn't they just use a normal bomb, anyway?), and (4) would have successfully prevented 9/11. And if you somehow managed to do all that, here is my question: "Why didn't Bush pick up this project, which so obviously could prevent another 9/11 and magically solve tons of terror problems?" (Oh, wait, don't answer. I assume he did, and it's just Top Secret, and you'll have the last laugh once Bush gayifies dozens of terror camps, right?)
• I don't know if Clinton is the smartest man on the planet - but if I had to guess, I'd say that he's not. Again: Not the issue.
• This issue is also not about Hillary Clinton. At all.

I might have felt some sort of sting if I was a Clinton fanboy. Apparently you think that anybody who disagrees with you about your Clinton edit must be a blind fanatic. How cute. Sorry, but I don't really care much about Clinton (and that goes for Bill and Hillary). I just care about your increasingly silly attempt to justify a completely off-topic edit that apparently aimed at simple smear-by-association (or, if you go through with your theory, smear-by-blaming-Clinton-for-9/11).

Here, let me try this yet again: Where is the link that justifies the Gay Bomb being included in the Bill Clinton article? None of the sources mention him, and the request was simply turned down by somebody in the Defense Department. --Jenkins 15:10, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

As I understand, Hillary Clinton was the Dick Cheney of the Clinton White House. While Bill Clinton & George W. Bush were just the idiot front men used to pose for pictures with Girl Scouts in the Rose Garden, Hillary, like Dick Cheney (and even GWH Bush in the Reagan White House) was the real power and brains behind the throne making policy and running the show.

So indeed Hillary Clinton has some questions to answer..... 15:29, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

...I give up. This "discussion" made me lose 20 IQ points, I think. Have fun, Rob.

To the brave souls who managed to read all the way to here: I tried. I really did. --Jenkins 15:42, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Jenkins, why did you bother? This is conservapedia we're talking about here. If the Half-Hour News Hour would've stuck to mining this page for material, perhaps it would still be on the air! Jsmog 13:10, 20 October 2007 (EDT)

You are still my hero, Jenkins.

Capnolagnia

There really should be a mention of his capnolagnia!! Booth 13:05, 7 December 2007 (EST)

State police

"He used Arkansas state policemen to arrange for him to meet women outside of marriage."

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to state that this allegedly happened? Nothing was ever proven. The allegations were just hearsay. I am not a Clinton fan, but leaving a statement like this in would be comparable to a statement found on Wikipedia.

OK, I put in "allegedly". We'll see if I get my hand slapped.--Frey 14:17, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

"Clinton aggressively advocated homosexuality."

This does not belong at the top of the page. Maybe in the context of a sentence, but definitely not as a part of the introduction to the article. It has no lead in or lead out and has no overall introductory relevance to this article, as evidenced by the fact that it stands alone on a line. Lolsardcloth 21:08, 14 December 2007 (EST)

The rest of the John W. Chalfant quote was as follows: Once God was shown the door, America went into chaos. Scholastic Aptitude Test scores plummeted. Violent crime rocketed upward. The abortion mills did an unprecedented business as they devised ever-more-sadistic ways to kill children before and even during birth. Bill Clinton, elected president of the United States in 1992, aggressively advocated homosexuality, which God calls "abomination." The Abandonment Clergy and their millions of undiscerning followers stood mute while America's sudden loss of greatness became obvious even to the world.

For now, I'll leave it up to other editors (who acually have the abilities to make changes) to decide how authoritative such a source is, and how well the unattributed quote merits inclusion in the article. Feebasfactor 21:21, 14 December 2007 (EST)

That's ridiculous. That quote isn't even remotely based in fact. A statement like that should at the very, very least point to some bills that he advocated that promoted gay rights or something. I would highly suggest removal of the line, especially in light of the "trustworthy" claim in this "encyclopedia's" tagline. Lolsardcloth 13:46, 22 December 2007 (EST)

I'd like to note, as one of the major tenets of the article is "Clinton was an advocate of homosexuality", you might want to note that this is a false statement. You may be quick to note that this in fact is true, but you aren't reading the sentence carefully enough. You may, instead, want to mention that he was a advocate of homosexual tolerance and acceptance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Echew99 (talk)

Oh, I didn't see this discussion here. I moved it to the "Presidency" section, but I have to say that source isn't very reliable, and I can't find in it how Clinton "advocated homosexuality". HelpJazz 22:58, 2 January 2008 (EST)

Christian category

Why was this deleted? He is a Christian, you know, maybe not a very devout one, but since every other US president is included....CraigC 21:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, why? --Tennant 22:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Methinks you already know the answer... Jros83 15:12, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

"Terrorist Pardons"

the only citation for this is a broken link. hmm...

!

Part of this article was copied from Citizendium and Wikipedia but the copied text was originally written by me, RJJensen (under the name Richard Jensen and rjensen) and does not include alterations made by others on that site.

North Korea

1. ↑ http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/