EIGHT MORE YEARS
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
EIGHT MORE YEARS
By Ralph Nader
For Bill and Hillary Clinton, the ultimate American dream is eight more
years. Yet how do you think they would react to having dozens of partisans
at their rallies sporting large signs calling for EIGHT MORE YEARS, EIGHT
MORE YEARS?
Don't you have the feeling that they would cringe at such public displays of
their fervent ambition which the New York Times described as a "truly
two-for-the-price-of-one" presidential race? It might remind voters to
remember or examine the real Clinton record in that peaceful decade of
missed opportunities and not be swayed by the sugarcoating version that the
glib former president emits at many campaign stops.
The 1990's were the first decade without the spectre of the Soviet Union.
There was supposed to be a "peace dividend" that would reduce the vast,
bloated military budget and redirect public funds to repair or expand our
public works or infrastructure.
Inaugurated in January 1993, with a Congress controlled by the Democratic
Party, Bill Clinton sent a small job-creating proposal to upgrade public
facilities. He also made some motions for campaign finance reform which he
promised during his campaign when running against incumbent George H.W. Bush
and candidate Ross Perot.
That set the stage for how Washington politicians sized up Clinton. He was
seen as devoid of modest political courage, a blurrer of differences with
the Republican opposition party and anything but the decisive transforming
leader he promised to be was he to win the election.
He proceeded, instead, to take credit for developments with which he had
very little to do with such as the economic growth propelled by the huge
technology dot.com boom.
Bragging about millions of jobs his Administration created, he neglected to
note that incomes stagnated for 80% of the workers in the country and ended
in 2000, under the level of 1973, adjusted for inflation.
A brainy White House assistant to Mr. Clinton told me in 1997 that the only
real achievement his boss could take credit for was passage of legislation
allowing 12 weeks family leave, without pay.
There are changes both the Clinton Administration actively championed that
further entrenched corporate power over our economy and government during
the decade. He pushed through Congress the NAFTA and the World Trade
Organization (WTO) agreements that represented the greatest surrender in our
history of local, state and national sovereignty to an autocratic, secretive
system of transnational governance. This system subordinated workers,
consumers and the environment to the supremacy of globalized commerce.
That was just for starters. Between 1996 and 2000, he drove legislation
through Congress that concentrated more power in the hands of giant
agribusiness, large telecommunications companies and the biggest jackpot -
opening the doors to gigantic mergers in the financial industry. The latter
so-called "financial modernization law" sowed the permissive seeds for
taking vast financial risks with other peoples' money (ie. pensioners and
investors) that is now shaking the economy to recession.
The man who pulled off this demolition of regulatory experience from the
lessons of the Great Depression was Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert
Rubin, who went to work for Citigroup - the main pusher of this
oligopolistic coup - just before the bill passed and made himself $40
million for a few months of consulting in that same year.
Bill Clinton's presidential resume was full of favors for the rich and
powerful. Corporate welfare subsidies, handouts and giveaways flourished,
including subsidizing the Big Three Auto companies for a phony research
partnership while indicating there would be no new fuel efficiency
regulations while he was President.
His regulatory agencies were anesthetized. The veteran watchdog for Public
Citizen of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Sidney Wolfe, said that
safety was the worst under Clinton in his twenty nine years of oversight.
The auto safety agency (NHTSA) abandoned its regulatory oath of office and
became a consulting firm to the auto industry. Other agencies were similarly
asleep - in job safety (OSHA) railroads, household product safety,
antitrust, and corporate crime law enforcement.
By reappointing avid Republican Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal
Reserve, Mr. Clinton assured no attention would be paid to the visible
precursors of what is now the sub-prime mortgage crisis. Mr. Greenspan,
declined to use his regulatory authority and repeatedly showed that he
almost never saw a risky financial instrument he couldn't justify.
To justify his invasion of Iraq, Bush regularly referred in 2002-2003 to
Clinton's bombing of Iraq and making "regime change" explicit U.S. policy.
But it was Clinton's insistence on UN-backed economic sanctions in contrast
to just military embargos, against Iraq, during his term in office. These
sanctions on civilians, a task force of leading American physicians
estimated, took half a million Iraqi children's lives.
Bill Clinton is generally viewed as one smart politician, having been twice
elected the President, helped by lackluster Robert Dole, having survived the
Lewinsky sex scandal, lying under oath about sex, and impeachment. When is
it all about himself, he is cunningly smart.
But during his two-term triangulating Presidency, he wasn't smart enough to
avoid losing his Party's control over Congress, or many state legislatures
and Governorships.
It has always been all about him, Now he sees another admission ticket to
the White House through his wife, Hillary Clinton. EIGHT MORE YEARS without
a mobilized, demanding participating citizenry is just that - EIGHT MORE
YEARS. It's small wonder that the editors of Fortune Magazine headlined an
article last June with the title, "Who Business is Betting On?" Their
answer, of course, was Hillary Clinton.
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Scott
Gut the nation and people who give and protect their freedom, freedom not a
one ever paid a drop of sweat, let alone blood, for.
He's a piece of shit, as is anyone who supports putting the Klintons back in
the White House (thank God that wont happen).
"Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick" <Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote in
message news:13psme9...@news.supernews.com...
gizmo
> The far left socialist dream in action.
>
> Gut the nation and people who give and protect their freedom, freedom not a
> one ever paid a drop of sweat, let alone blood, for.
Nader's an idiot but don't you think you're overdoing the hyperbole a
bit here ? Gut the nation ? Get a grip man.
>
> He's a piece of shit, as is anyone who supports putting the Klintons back in
> the White House (thank God that wont happen).
>
POS ? Would you like to debate him ? You'd be babbling within a minute
or two.
Just curious...would you prefer Obama to Bill/Hill in the White House ?
hieroph...@hotmail.com
Have you ever voted for Ralph Nader ? Why are you posting something
writen by him ?
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> POS ? Would you like to debate him ? You'd be babbling within a minute
> or two.
Maybe, maybe not.
But it has nothing to do with Clinton being a piece of shit.
> Just curious...would you prefer Obama to Bill/Hill in the White House ?
Who says we're limited to that choice?
Since you asked, tho, my preference would be Colonel Oliver North.
But, ABH.
--
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:cfeee236-9ae7-4ebd...@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com...
What business is it of yours to ask?
Did you have any counterpoint to what he wrote, or are you just being
orally flatulent once again?
--
Does anybody here really think that taking away the guns will stop
killing? Or knives, or icepicks, or chains, or ropes, or baseball
bats, or poisons, or cars & trucks. People are gonna kill people,
and they'll always think of a new weapon if you take away the old ones.
And just because I carry a potential weapon doesn't mean I intend to
commit murder, or that I may be tempted to commit murder.
I often carry a big ugly knife. Lots of my friends do too.
I have never heard of anyone being tempted to use the knife on
anyone just because they have it with them. You gotta be in the
mood to do the killing and you use what's at hand. -Jeff Cooper
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
gizmo
> "gizmo" <gi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fno7up$p00$1...@aioe.org...
>
>> POS ? Would you like to debate him ? You'd be babbling within a minute
>> or two.
>
> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> But it has nothing to do with Clinton being a piece of shit.
I believe he was referring to Nader as the POS.
Try reading for comprehension.
>
>> Just curious...would you prefer Obama to Bill/Hill in the White House ?
>
> Who says we're limited to that choice?
No one. But who would you prefer, Obama or Clinton ?
hieroph...@hotmail.com
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
hierophantfish said "Have you ever voted for Ralph Nader ? Why are
you posting something writen by him ?"
Popeye asked " What business is it of yours to ask?"
Hierophant says, "Well Popeye, It is my business to ask since
YOU are the one posting something from him. But regardless, why
shouldn't I ask this question ? Why do you object that I ask it ?"
Popeye asked, " Did you have any counterpoint to what he wrote, or
are you just being orally flatulent once again? "
Hierophant says, "SInce when do I need a counterpoint ? Why can't
I just ask a question and expect an honest answer from you ? Is it
that hard for you to be honest ? Maybe you can't answer the question
of did you ever vote for Ralph Nader. If you never voted for him,
then the next question is : why are you quoting him to suit your
needs, since he clearly isn't the Repub choice for anything ? "
Feel free to explain your mistake.
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
> Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick wrote:
>> "gizmo" <gi...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:fno7up$p00$1...@aioe.org...
>>
>>> POS ? Would you like to debate him ? You'd be babbling within a minute
>>> or two.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not.
>>
>> But it has nothing to do with Clinton being a piece of shit.
>
> I believe he was referring to Nader as the POS.
> Try reading for comprehension.
Then you are stating that Nader is "trying to put the Klintons back in the
Whitehouse".
That's not the sense I got from his article, how about you?
Maybe it's not -my- reading comprehension that needs work.
>>> Just curious...would you prefer Obama to Bill/Hill in the White House ?
>>
>> Who says we're limited to that choice?
>
> No one. But who would you prefer, Obama or Clinton ?
Nope, it's definitely -your- reading comprehension.
I already -clearly- answered that.
Popeye/ www.finalprotectivefire.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/Popeye8762
Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick
news:b5c4aa7d-3a84-40ed...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com...
hierophantfish said "Have you ever voted for Ralph Nader ? Why are
you posting something writen by him ?"
Popeye asked " What business is it of yours to ask?"
Hierophant says, "Well Popeye, It is my business to ask since
YOU are the one posting something from him.
It's no business at all of yours, what I post, ever.
But regardless, why
shouldn't I ask this question ? Why do you object that I ask it ?"
Popeye asked, " Did you have any counterpoint to what he wrote, or
are you just being orally flatulent once again? "
Hierophant says, "SInce when do I need a counterpoint ? Why can't
I just ask a question and expect an honest answer from you ? Is it
that hard for you to be honest ? Maybe you can't answer the question
of did you ever vote for Ralph Nader. If you never voted for him,
then the next question is : why are you quoting him to suit your
needs, since he clearly isn't the Repub choice for anything ? "
Feel free to explain your mistake.
When I make them, I do.
Did you have a counterpoint to the post, yet, or was this just more oral
flatulence?
hieroph...@hotmail.com
<Pop...@finalprotectivefire.com> wrote:
> It's no business at all of yours, what I post, ever.
You're on the internet. You make it my business and everyone else's
if they care to read your nonsense. But you are on target because I
don't usually read your crap.
> Did you have a counterpoint to the post, yet, or was this just more oral
> flatulence?
Pointing out that you borrow anything from anyone to attempt to make a
statement, even if that person is Ralph, someone you wouldn't vote
for.
Chris Guynn
<hieroph...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:edef7380-15af-4429...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
There are a lot of people I wouldn't vote for who say things that I agree
with.
KV
"Chris Guynn" <chris...@gamil.com> wrote in message
news:rV2oj.4820$5K1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Joe English
fucking top poster
gru- your welcome, please for KV
Grumman-581
> I'm sorry-what the fuck does this have to do with scuba?
http://grumman581.googlepages.com/welcome-rec-scuba
--
See NNTP header field "X-Real-Email-Address" to reply by email.
Grumman-581
> nothing
>
> fucking top poster
>
> gru- your welcome, please for KV
Already did it...
He's a Yankee... You can't expect much else from them, ya' know...
Rod
>--
>
heheheheheh