Difference between revisions of "Talk:Bill Clinton"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Clinton and Gay Bomb?)
(Clinton and Gay Bomb?)
Line 105: Line 105:
  
 
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." --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:07, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
 
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." --[[User:Jenkins|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.  --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:30, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 17:30, 7 October 2007

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)
  • http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/clinton.lewinsky/