why that was nice

[PollyCranopolis 10+ year member]

All I know is the country was run better by Bill Clinton IMHO. I will be voting for Hillary when the time comes.

Well, regarding terrorism, the Clinton legacy cannot be dismissed in any analysis of 9/11. In 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, saying that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil. The man who was running the show when the CIA made these assessments? Clinton, of course. The United States was struck repeatedly under his watch, and our inaction did not go unnoticed. Despite the apparent involvement of both Iraq and al Qaeda, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a police matter, not as the international terrorist attack it was. The Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex was bombed by Islamic extremists three years later, and the United States did nothing. When al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in 1998 by blowing up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, Clinton’s “response” was bombing empty training camps in Afghanistan and somebody else’s pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And when 17 servicemen were killed and 39 injured in what could only be construed as an act of war on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the response was an FBI investigation. Could more have been done before 9/11? Absolutely. The United States could have used more force to punish those who attack us, and in the process, possibly deter future attacks. Or we could have aggressively pursued the threat posed by radical Islam, particularly inside our borders. But considering the cry over racial profiling even after 9/11, almost any such efforts would have been squashed by the P.C. police. The historical record should make it clear to anyone not blinded by partisanship that Bush is not to blame for 9/11. Neither is Clinton, though. The terrorists are.

And I'm no economist by any means, but of course there are many outside factors to consider..

Dot Com bubble..

Real estate bubble...

Clinton affected the economy by cutting the military and tolerating multiple attacks, Bush affected the economy by cutting taxes to raise revenue to re-build the military. Which would you choose? I mean, they were both very good economies.

The Economy -

GW's 1st three years versus Clinton's 1st three years:

Unemployment Rate -

Jan 2004: 5.6% (After GWBush's 1st three years)

Change in rate from prior year (Jan '03-'04): 0.3%, Decrease

Jan 1996: 5.6% (After Bill Clinton's 1st three years)

Change in rate from prior year (Jan '95-'96): 0.0%, No change

Poverty Rate For Families (Two-Year Average) -

2001-2002: 9.40% (GWBush's 1st two years)

1993-1994: 12.95% (Clinton's 1st two years)

1993-2000: 10.50% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

Percent of People Below 50 Percent of Poverty Level (Two-Year Average) -

2001-2002: 4.95% (GWBush's 1st two years)

1993-1994: 6.05% (Clinton's 1st two years)

1993-2000: 5.31% (Average for Clinton's full eight years)

Homeownership Rate -

GWBush's 1st three years:

4th Quarter 2000: 67.5% (before GWBush)

4th Quarter 2003: 68.6% (after 3 years of GWBush)

Difference: +1.1%

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:

4th Quarter 1992: 64.4% (before Clinton)

4th Quarter 1995: 65.1% (after 3 years of Clinton)

Difference: +0.7%

Inflation Rate -

GWBush's 1st three years:

Jan 2001: 3.73% (before GWBush)

Jan 2004: 1.93% (after 3 years of GWBush)

Difference: 1.8% Decrease

Bill Clinton's 1st three years:

Jan 1993: 3.26% (before Clinton)

Jan 1996: 2.73% (after 3 years of Clinton)

Difference: 0.53% Decrease

Obviously most of this includes numbers only from the first 3 years of each term. The majority was pulled from http://www.census.gov. Of course one would like to see a comparison including Clinton's full term, and the projected remainder of GW's before jumping to conclusions....

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Well, regarding terrorism, the Clinton legacy cannot be dismissed in any analysis of 9/11. In 1997, the CIA updated its intelligence estimate to ensure bin Laden appeared on its very first page as an emerging threat, saying that his growing movement might translate into attacks on U.S. soil. The man who was running the show when the CIA made these assessments? Clinton, of course. The United States was struck repeatedly under his watch, and our inaction did not go unnoticed. Despite the apparent involvement of both Iraq and al Qaeda, the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a police matter, not as the international terrorist attack it was. The Khobar Towers U.S. military housing complex was bombed by Islamic extremists three years later, and the United States did nothing. When al Qaeda killed more than 200 people in 1998 by blowing up two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, Clinton’s “response” was bombing empty training camps in Afghanistan and somebody else’s pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. And when 17 servicemen were killed and 39 injured in what could only be construed as an act of war on the U.S.S. Cole in 2000, the response was an FBI investigation. Could more have been done before 9/11? Absolutely. The United States could have used more force to punish those who attack us, and in the process, possibly deter future attacks. Or we could have aggressively pursued the threat posed by radical Islam, particularly inside our borders. But considering the cry over racial profiling even after 9/11, almost any such efforts would have been squashed by the P.C. police. The historical record should make it clear to anyone not blinded by partisanship that Bush is not to blame for 9/11. Neither is Clinton, though. The terrorists are.

What did Regan do after the 1983 barracks bombing?

If your going to list victories for radical Islam, you might as well include the trend setting event in which Regan caved into their demands.

You cant blame Clinton for inaction when Regan acted even worse. Instead of inaction, he gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted-- a victory.

 

[bumpweLL.nYc 10+ year member]

It's way too early to call.
I believe that this election, like the last couple, will ultimately depend on what happens with evangelical movement.

Will they turn out for Rudy or Mitt, an abortion supporting gay rights advocate and a Mormon respectively? Will the cracks currently surfacing in the movement become salient and cause fragmentation? Will Dobson really run a third party candidate?

how about adultery, 3 marriages, dysfunctinal family, and best man BERNIE KERIK

Given the current administration, this election should be in the bag for the democrats but they might have shot themselves in the foot by running the most polarizing woman in memory or a black man.

dummies. Hillary and her $5000 to every newborn. nice plan, what a dope. I have a better plan. Get the illegals out, take those jobs everyone thinks we need illegals to do, and give them to people on WELFARE.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

New federal legislation says universities must agree to provide not just deterrents but also "alternatives" to peer-to-peer piracy, such as paying monthly subscription fees to the music industry for their students, on penalty of losing all financial aid for their students.

The U.S. House of Representatives bill (PDF), which was introduced late Friday by top Democratic politicians, could give the movie and music industries a new revenue stream by pressuring schools into signing up for monthly subscription services such as Ruckus and Napster. Ruckus is advertising-supported, and Napster charges a monthly fee per student.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) applauded the proposal, which is embedded in a 747-page spending and financial aid bill. "We very much support the language in the bill, which requires universities to provide evidence that they have a plan for implementing a technology to address illegal file sharing," said Angela Martinez, a spokeswoman for the MPAA.

According to the bill, if universities did not agree to test "technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity," all of their students--even ones who don't own a computer--would lose federal financial aid.

The prospect of losing a combined total of nearly $100 billion a year in federal financial aid, coupled with the possibility of overzealous copyright-bots limiting the sharing of legitimate content, has alarmed university officials.

"Such an extraordinarily inappropriate and punitive outcome would result in all students on that campus losing their federal financial aid--including Pell grants and student loans that are essential to their ability to attend college, advance their education, and acquire the skills necessary to compete in the 21st-century economy," a letter from university officials to Congress written on Wednesday said. "Lower-income students, those most in need of federal financial aid, would be harmed most under the entertainment industry's proposal."

The letter was signed by the chancellor of the University of Maryland system, the president of Stanford University, the general counsel of Yale University, and the president of Penn State.

They stress that the "higher education community recognizes the seriousness of the problem of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing and has long been committed to working with the entertainment industry to find a workable solution to the problem." In addition, the letter says that colleges and universities are responsible for "only a small fraction of illegal file sharing."

The MPAA says the university presidents are overreacting. An MPAA representative sent CNET News.com a list of campuses that have begun filtering files transferred on their networks, including the University of Florida (Red Lambda technology); the University of Utah (network monitoring and Audible Magic); and Ohio's Wittenberg University (Audible Magic).

For each school taking such steps, the MPAA says, copyright complaints dramatically decreased, in some cases going from 50 a month to none.

The MPAA's Martinez did warn that the consequences of violating the proposed rules would be stiff: "Because it is added to the current reporting requirements that universities already have through the Secretary of Education, it would have the same penalties for noncompliance as any of the others requirements under current law."

Neither the Recording Industry Association of America nor the Association of American Universities was available for comment on Friday.

Expanding on an earlier anti-P2P plan

The two Democratic politicians behind Friday's bill are Reps. George Miller from California and Ruben Hinojosa of Texas. Miller is chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee and Hinojosa is chairman of the higher education subcommittee.

They said in a press release that the legislation, called the College Opportunity and Affordability Act, or COAA, will be voted on by the full committee next week.

The peer-to-peer sections of COAA appear to be a revision of an amendment originally proposed over the summer by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to his chamber's sweeping higher education reauthorization bill.

Groups like the American Association of Universities and Educause attacked Reid's proposal at the time, saying it was incredibly worrisome because it would have yanked federal grants and loans from students who attend schools that don't do enough to prevent illegal file sharing

The old language over the summer required schools to develop "a plan for implementing a technology-based deterrent to prevent the illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property." The new language requires "a plan for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as a plan to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."

Reid's bill also would have required the Secretary of Education to devise a list of the 25 schools with the highest levels of illegal peer-to-peer file sharing, based on entertainment industry statistics. That's not in the new COAA legislation.

On the Senate side, after universities raised a fuss, the contentious amendment was eventually diluted to a requirement that higher education institutions merely advise their students, in writing, of the legal consequences of "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material" and what steps the school was taking to combat such activities.

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

wtf

this is getting a little ridiculous.

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

Its nice to see the federal government abetting extortion for the music industry.

 

[Lingerfelt 10+ year member]

Mmm k, take away my college money because someone got caught downloading some Ludacris? Heads will roll.

 

[BreakingBad]

exactly why i don't believe in secondary education.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

It's quite disturbing.

I can see them requiring schools to have some sort of policy regarding piracy, but the riaa/mpaa shouldn't be able to yank a schools ability to give students financial if they aren't satisfied.

 

[zthumper 10+ year member]

i don't get financial aid.....so i'll d/l as many songs as i want....them fvckers

 

[BreakingBad]

**** the government, dude.

 

[dcole18 5,000+ posts]

if this goes through i see a whole lot more school shootings in our near future //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

i don't get financial aid.....so i'll d/l as many songs as i want....them fvckers

apparently you didn't read the article.

They aren't proposing taking individual students financial aid away, they are proposing taking it away from the entire school.

Meaning no students of the school could get any federal financial aid.

Most schools could not survive such a blow.

 

[HitManSE 10+ year member]

how about adultery, 3 marriages, dysfunctinal family, and best man BERNIE KERIK

Dont forget, one of those marriages was to his cousin. I can already see the media coverage over a taboo *** scandal 2yrs into it //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif Probably involving a midget too.

dummies. Hillary and her $5000 to every newborn. nice plan, what a dope. I have a better plan. Get the illegals out, take those jobs everyone thinks we need illegals to do, and give them to people on WELFARE.

The problem with Welfare, is the people currently on it, are cutting corners with taxes in order not to go above that so called line were its considered they dont need it. Not only that, but the fact that they make enough money to where they can keep a job (if that) working few hours and welfare makes up the rest. So why would they want to bust their ***, working more hours, only to make the same amount of $.

Thats why its said, welfare KEEPS people on welfare.

 

[faulkton 5,000+ posts]

Schools that can afford to operate with no federal aid are far too expensive for the vast majority of the population.