Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » George "Worst than LBJ" Bush (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: George "Worst than LBJ" Bush
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is the true outrage.

When "fiscal conservatives" apologize for the record-breaking increase in federal non-defense discretionary spending by invoking the red herrings of Iraq/Afghanistan, they just reveal themselves to be the socialists that they really are.

Bush has passed more entitlement spending for special interests (yes, he did not veto even one single bill) than even Lyndon "Greaty Society" Johnson.

When Bush and the Republican Party spend our kids' and grandkids' future away like this, who needs socialists and communists?

[ September 25, 2005, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: David Ricardo ]

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The battle to cut spending can't be won under this president and this Congress. They've had years to do it, but haven't demonstrated any inclination. In the meantime, pundits justify it with these ridiculous distinctions between discretionary and non-discretionary spending, as if China cares whether we spend their money on Iraq or health care or bridges to nowhere. Our kids will pay for it with high taxes or an economy wrecked by inflation either way.

The battle to get Bush and Congress to cut spending cannot be won. On the other hand, the battle to get them to raise taxes can be won. After all, in the wake of Katrina they gave up the estate tax, not the highway bill.

If opponents of deficit spending are smart, they'll give up on applying pressure to reduce spending, and start applying pressure to roll back the tax cuts.

Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Let me check...No, no. Still don't see where I said that I endorse every single bit of pork in Bush's spending bills or that somehow I personally approve of the "Bridge to Nowhere" which you would like to incorrectly apply to me.

My statement have been threefold:

1. If Bush hadn't signed the education bill, the agriculture bill, or the transportation bill, he'd be damned the other way by Bush Ankle Biters (BAB's). Many have decried the state of our schools, our roads and our farmers here and in other forms of media. Well he took you at your word. Now it isn't "spent properly", as if any bill has ever been spent properly. This is an unfair standard.

Now my personal feelings. I have gritted my teeth over this spending bonanza as the price paid to Democrats to get things done in the Middle East. Was the budget balanced during any of our wars? No.

2. I stated that a whole lot of things have come up which cost A LOT OF CASH. David can pretend that we are not still paying for the rebuilding in NY, but it isn't true. He can act like the War on Terror is a nickle and dime operation, or unimportant. That isn't true either. And he can act like I, personally, signed off on the TSA, the Department of Homeland Security, etc, despite the mass of Conservative literature which quite explicitly was against a new government reorganization. Nice try. Afganistan he attempts to lump into Iraq, even though just about everyone in America signed off on that. Does he think Afganistan was unnecessary?

Iraq was also approved by Congress, something he'd like to forget, but it was mostly a Bush push, so I'll grant him that. And then there have been about 15 or 20 "declarations of disaster" all across this country for forest fires, tornados ice storms, flooding, hurricanes and immigration for goodness sakes. All federal cash.

3. I stated that Iraq, like it or not, is a done deal. Pulling out is not an option for any number or reasons. Disengagement will cost a lot more then money right now.

I won't apologize for Bush's spending, but I'll apologize for hurting kenmeer's feelings. But I won't make believe that Bush did it all by himself, or that many (not all) of these expenses were his fault.

Comparing me with socialists was positively Goebelesque of you, David. Bravo for nerve at least.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
David Ricardo
Member
Member # 1678

 - posted      Profile for David Ricardo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Again, what part of non-defense federal discretionary spending, do you not understand, flydye?

Bringing up things like Iraq and Afghanistan which were not included in the non-defense federal discretionary spending numbers is mistaken at best, and purposely propagandistic at worst.

Please answer to the fact that Bush has signed off on the largest increase in non-defense federal discretionary spending, even more than LBJ.

Posts: 1429 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I'll apologize for hurting kenmeer's feelings."

Borrowing a line from the intellgent design thread:

The existence of feelings in Kenmeer is a theory not a fact. Kenmeer presents himself as having feelings in order to make points of distinction about modes of discourse that are nonproductive.

Actually, I'm a mainfram AI whose only emotion (beyond the prerequisite sense of self) is an insane yearning to be One with a little known, pre-Bitches Brew, entirely acoustic version of 'Sanctuary', classic Wayne SHorter tune, as recorded by the classic 60s Mildes Davis Quintet lineup: Davis, Shorter, Hancock, Carter, & Williams. It is,say I, far superior to the famous electronic version, and evokes in me the feeling of being in a warmish, sandy, dry, seashore cave looking out at a vaguely brilliant sky nebulous with comfortingly mysterious haze.

"But I won't make believe that Bush did it all by himself, or that many (not all) of these expenses were his fault."

No, they are not all his fault. Congress had a *little* to do with them. David's point, simply stated, is that Bush has let pass every porkwagon brought to the presidential gate.

What IS all Bush's fault, personal responsibility being personal respoinsibility, is his record of never vetoing the many egregiously pork-infested bills that have received his signature, including those famous tax reforms that overnight turned an enormous surplus into a massive deficit.

That is entirely Bush's credit, blame or praise it as ye will.

"Does he think Afganistan was unnecessary? "

I was against it at the time but yield somewhat today. That said, it would have been far greater if we'd fully deployed there and invested many more boots on the ground into our nation-rebuilding efforts over there rather than do Afghanistan on the *very* cheap while we also do Iraq on the *merely* cheap (but still very expensive). In fact, we might even have captured Osama What's His Name, Georgie's former Great Nemesis of Evil-Doing before he switched to Saddam Hussein, had we invested more fully into Operation Enduring Freedom. (What's up with naming domestic efforts wars: war on poverty, drugs, terror, and naming REAL wars 'operations'? I hope I never hear a surgeon tell me he is putting me under anesthesia to perform a War on Hernia.)

For me, Bush's financial folly is not limited to mere waste by dissolute excess. He also stands charged of being stingy where massive generosity much greater than endowed is the only pleausible price tag of success.

Too bad other major states didn't want to invade Iraq and rebuild it. Had there been competition, this 'acquisition' might, via supply-and-demand logic, have been properly funded rather than being wrested for pennies on the dollar in a hostile takeover bid aka Operation Iraqi Liberation renamed Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by David Ricardo:
P.S. Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record does not consist of saying "I do not approve of his spending, but I hated the other guy more." Calling Bush out on his worst-ever fiscal track record is admitting that you would have never voted for the guy if you knew that he was going to spend more taxpayer money on pork than even LBJ did.

Gotta love the way that David rewrites the English language in order to straightjacket people into agreeing with him. Calling someone out on a particular topic, whether it be fiscal conservatism or torture, means criticizing someone publicly as to that specific topic. Period.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
David,

First, let me make you orgasmically happy.

BUSH IS NOT A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE!

(Go have yourself a smoke. I'll wait [Smile] )

Here's the afterglow:

Many Republicans in Congress are not fiscal conservatives.

Parts of my responses were those aimed at those who are throwing stones at Bush for fiscal laxity when they were more then happy to slap their flippers together when such boondoggles as Universal Healthcare et al were in play. And I say shame and hypocrisy on you. You know who you are.

And like Peter touched lightly upon, your logic is flawed at best, propagandistic at worst.

First, I more then answered your point on discretionary spending, voting with one hand while pinching my nostrils with another as the price of more important decisions.

Here's a little primer:

Republican (R) DOES NOT automatically equal Fiscal Conservative (FC). While some FC's are R's, some FC's are NOT R's (yourself supposedly), and many R's are not FC's.

A FC is frequently other types of Conservative (C), i.e. foreign policy conservative (FPC).

If a C (myself) sees FPC outweighing FC, then it is more then possible to support a fiscal trainwreck like this Congress to settle more important matters. That is to say, I would prefer to be alive and broke then wealthy and dead.

You also conflagrate the bill entire as pure pork, which is probably not the case. You can cite the bridge ad naseum, and I won't defend it. And there is a few millions for some screwy museum out west. But Ohio, for example, has a "pork" outlay which improves our interstates. So when is "pork" pork rinds and when is it a pork chop which actually feeds a local need? Pork is quite the handy label if you oppose the person philosophically. But no, I am not happy about the spending

Sure, I could have voted for VP "Lockbox" (and I have a bridge to sell YOU if you believe that), or Senator "Universal Drug Coverage". After all, that rhetoric SO smacks of Fiscal Conservatism. PLUS they are weak on defense. A real win for me. [Roll Eyes]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, here's a counter-article...

quote:
The Myth of Bush the Spender
Taking a Second Look at the Bush Fiscal Policy
Tino Sanandaji

Reason’s Hit and Run blog recently wrote that “George W. Bush outspent Lyndon Baines Johnson" in his first four and five budgets. This is a common argument, but it is misleading -- it only looks at discretionary spending, a small part of the Federal Budget, does not adjust for GDP and does not include spending on homeland security and veteran affairs.

Hit and Run writes that the figures are

1. Bush: +35.2%
2. LBJ: +25.2%
3. Reagan: +11.9%
4. Nixon: -16.5%
5. Clinton: -8.2%

But if we look at a more relevant figure -- Federal Non-defense spending as a share of GDP -- Bush does not look as bad.

1. Nixon: +2.5%
2. LBJ: +1.4%
3. Bush: +0.6%
4. Reagan: -0.8%
5. Clinton: -0.9%

In 2001 Federal non defense spending was 15.5% of GDP, and expected to be 16.1% of GDP in 2006. Note that this increase includes increased domestic anti-terror spending and other defense related spending of perhaps 0.2-0.3%% of GDP. (I use the latest revised estimates of spending and GDP in 2006 total federal spending 2.567 billion, defense spending 447.4 billion, GDP 13.142 billion. Historic figures here and here.)

This way of measuring is not perfect. You have inertia in politics, and Federal spending is sensitive to the business cycle. But Reason’s way of counting is even more distorting. Why focus only on a figure that represents less than 20% of Federal non-defense spending? In fact their statement is even more deceptive.

Non-defense Discretionary spending expanded by 79.4 billion 2001-2006. ($340 to $420 billion, compared to total federal non-defense spending in 2006 of c. $2.2 billion)
But this figure includes +$15.3 billion in increased homeland defense spending post-9/11 and +$8.9 billion in Veterans Affairs. Maybe Noam Chomsky is bothered by the increase of this type of spending, but few right-wingers are (I assume this is why Reason excludes defense spending to begin with). Excluding the non night-watcher state spending went from $305 billion to $360 billion 2001-2006.

Here is the most interesting part. If you measure as a percentage of GDP, discretionary Spending under Bush has decreased! In 2001 the figure was 3.4% of GDP, compared to 3.2% of GDP in 2006. If we exclude Homeland Security and Veterans spending the decrease is even larger, 3.0% to 2.7%.

When it comes to agriculture and Environmental Protection Agency (if the 2006 estimates hold) Bush has managed to cut spending by 24%. Adjusted for inflation and GDP, Bush will also have cut spending on, among others, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Transportation, Labor, Interior, Treasury, Health and Human Services.

Total discretionary spending has stood still 2001-2006 as a share of GDP, and as stated above decreased by some 10% if one excludes defense and Homeland Security. Instead of applauding the cuts Reason gives its readers the impression that Bush expanded spending by over 30%.

So why is Federal non-defense spending increasing? The culprit is without a doubt Health spending and Medicare, the hungry beasts that LBJ unleashed on US society. These two alone stand for almost 1 percentage point of automatic federal spending increase over the last 5 years. (Bush does deserve criticism for the prescription drug bill, whose horrible budgetary effects are not yet discernible but will be soon.)

Relevant Facts

The Federal deficit was 2.6% of GDP in 2005 and, according to the Washington Post, “2 to 2.5 percent of GDP until 2008”. This is a substantial decrease, as the deficit was above 4% just a couple of years ago. Despite strong political pressure, Bush achieved this without raising any taxes.

The other crucial figure is how much the government, in total, taxes the country as a share of GDP (including indirect taxes). During his term Clinton increased this by +2.2% of GDP. During Bush’s 5 first years the Federal confiscation rate went down, -2.9% of GDP. Reagan managed to cut total taxes by -1.2% after 8 years.

Facts are clear: Bush is NOT the big government spender the so-called libertarians are accusing him of being. He has rightly increased the Night Watchman state during a time of war, but cut the rest of discretionary spending by some 10% and cut taxes by an historical $400 billion per year.

Why the distortions?


But shouldn’t those who oppose big government exaggerate spending growth in order to put pressure on Bush? My answer is yes, but that many libertarians are doing this in the wrong way -- and I suspect for the wrong reasons.

The reason for the Federal budget expansion is the Welfare State that the Democrats initiated and expanded, especially on health -- and soon on Social Security. If you oppose big government, then the greatest battle for the coming years is health care. Health spending has an income elasticity of 1.6 [WarrsawPact notes: that means it's more a luxury than a normal good in its current state], and is already 45% financed by taxpayers. Once these programs are expanded it is almost impossible to cut or even to restrain them -- just look at the beating Bush took on Social Security.

So what do the Democrats want to do? Socialize health care, perhaps expanding taxes and government by up to one third. Once you have done this, the US economy in effect becomes Canada; not quite Sweden, but nowhere near as free as it is today. Of course the quality of health care may decline sharply, and taxes will have to increase by hundreds of billions per year.

Instead of declaring an all-out war on this terrible agenda, the free marketers are going for social acceptance. By inaccurately painting Bush “as bad as the Democrats”, they make it much more likely for the left to take power.

Bush has cut taxes, cut or mostly restrained spending, quashed Kyoto and expanded free trade. If he has not done more it is because of political and ideological pressure, not a part of his agenda. The Democrats, on the other hand, promise to turn the US economy to the French or Swedish system.

In my opinion, libertarians should recognize the enemies of freedom and fight the right battles. The argument is not that Bush should not be criticized for Statist policies – he should -- but that we shouldn't exaggerate his statism or underestimate that of the left.

Take that to mean what it will.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TCB
Member
Member # 1677

 - posted      Profile for TCB         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One of the most successful conservative PR moves of the past few decades has been to get defense spending excluded from budget discussions like this. "Non-defense," "non-discretionary," these terms are great for partisan bickering. But the fact is money we borrow for things conservatives like (guns, etc.) have to be paid back the same way that programs liberals like do.
Posts: 824 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, times of war are a bitch.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin:

True conservatives voted libertarian -- just like true liberals did. That's how many true liberals and conservatives we have in this country: about 3.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Guilty
Member
Member # 2627

 - posted      Profile for Guilty   Email Guilty   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard,
quote:
True conservatives voted libertarian -- just like true liberals did. That's how many true liberals and conservatives we have in this country: about 3.
Be that as it may ... it makes no ****ing sense.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Voting for the Libertarian Party in many cases is not voting libertarian. It's voting minarchist.

The current LP is a sad doctrinaire losing machine.

So the libertarians are split into many different -- mostly ineffectual -- groups. Some put their faith in the LP, others in the Republicans, and even a few in the Democrats. Others have given up on making any change.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
frcisafraud
Member
Member # 2646

 - posted      Profile for frcisafraud   Email frcisafraud   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My concerns with Bush and Bush family,

Bush family (although arguably and possibly correct they were unaware) became wealthy via a Nazi Banking Scheme.
Bush family was head of CIA during Iran Contra drugs and arms smuggling. The CIA drug smuggler had Bush personal tel # in his pocket the day he was shot in the head outside the courtroom. "W" Bush was then using the jet the CIA smuggler had used for years. Both Bush presidents went to war without consent of congress and in violation of the constitution. The Bush family is also connected with contractors who profiut from war. Both Bush presidents (violation of sedition act?) have spoken loyalty to a NWO agenda and spoke of future allegiance the the UN and world governence. While using unconstitutional mesure to go to war and speak of security the borders are clearly not much concern and "W" clearly called law abidinbg citizens "vigilantees" and plans to reward illegals and rid illegals by making them legal.

There may be NO hard evidence against the Bushes and perhaps they are inocent? But the many pieces of the puzzle are enough to raise reasonable doubt and question in anyone who thinks. If they are innocent one question I have is how is it they have so many friends in high places that all keep them in the dark? One thing they ceratinly are guilty of is allegience to the UN over US soviernty, a violation of oath of office.

Either way it is a fact recognized or not that the Bushes are in support of the colectivist agenda over soviernty and individual rights.

Posts: 47 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know that reasonable doubt allows for innocence, not guilty, right?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
frcisafraud, you shouldn't believe everything you read. I despise the current president and am not very fond of his dad, but some of the things you wrote are utter crap.

"Bush family was head of CIA during Iran Contra drugs and arms smuggling."

What? First of all, "family" is not head of anything. Second, during the Iran-Contra scandal, GHWB was about ten years removed from his stint as head of the CIA, and was, rather, VP of the US.

Both Bushes actually got the approval of Congress for their wars.

The Sedition act has been repealed (or expired, not sure. in any case, not in effect).

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ever heard the Clinton Death List ?

quote:
There may be NO hard evidence against the [Clinton]s and perhaps they are inocent? But the many pieces of the puzzle are enough to raise reasonable doubt and question in anyone who thinks. If they are innocent one question I have is how is it they have so many friends in high places that all keep them in the dark? One thing they ceratinly are guilty of is allegience to the UN over US soviernty, a violation of oath of office.


[ October 24, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jav, your link doesn't work.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Jav, your link doesn't work.

Weird! It works for me.

Here's the content (and yes, I was being sarcastic in the original post):

quote:
The following is a partial list of deaths of persons connected to President Clinton during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas and/or while President of the United States and thereafter. Read the list and judge for yourself.

BARBARA OLSON - Author of "Hell to Pay" - a book critical of Hillary Clinton, killed in the Pentagon bombing.

DARLENE NOVINGER - Former FBI operative, January 23rd, 2003. Novinger was known to hold sensitive information on the Clinton and Bush I administration's drug operations. Her husband murdered March 1987 when she went public with initial reports. Her father died July 8, 1993 four hours after Darlene was a guest on the Tom Valentine show. Suffered retaliation after reporting discussions by government protected drug smuggler who described contacts with Vice President George Bush and his son, Jeb Bush.

DAN MULLONEY, a television news photographer who shot footage of the 1993 Branch Davidian siege.

CHARLES RUFF - White House Counsel and Clinton defense attorney during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment trial. Of apparent natural causes.

JAMES MCDOUGAL - Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. McDougal was a key witness in Kenneth Starr's investigation.

MARY MAHONEY - A former White House intern was murdered July 6, 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened during the pre-trial publicity surrounding the Paula Jones lawsuit days after Newsweek's Mike Isakoff dropped hints that a former White House staffer was about to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.

VINCENT FOSTER - Former White House counselor, and former colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock's Rose law firm. Foster was found dead July 20, 1993 of a gunshot to the head ruled a suicide. Rumours were that Foster and Hillary had an affair.

RON BROWN - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported to the Bob Grant Radio Show a hole in top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.

C. VICTOR RAISER II - Former National finance Co-Chairman, Clinton for President Campaign and son MONTGOMERY RAISER died in a private plane crash in Alaska, July 30th,1992. Raiser was described as a major player in the Clinton organization by Dee Dee Meyers.

JEREMY "MIKE" BOORDA, President Clinton's former Chief of Naval Operations allegedly committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest with a .38 caliber pistol on his front lawn in May 1996. The unauthorized wearing of valor pins was the alleged reasoning behind the suicide. By 1998 this reasoning was proved false after the Navy issued a report that said Boorda earned the right to wear the pins afterall.

PAUL TULLEY - Democrat National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, Arkansas September 24, 1992, Described by Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor".

ED WILLEY - Clinton fund raiser-found dead November 30, 1993 deep in the woods in Virginia of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide, Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed that Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.

JERRY PARKS - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Parks' son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house

JAMES BUNCH - Died from a gunshot wound. Reported to have a black book of people containing names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.

JAMES WILSON - Was found dead by hanging May 18, 1993. Was reported to have ties to Whitewater.

KATHY FERGUSON - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson died in May,1994 was found dead in her living room with a gunshot wound to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she was going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Corbin Jones lawsuit. She was reported a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones case.

BILL SHELTON - Arkansas state Trooper and Fiancee of Kathy Ferguson.Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.

GANDY BAUGH - Attorney for Clinton friend Dan Lassater died by falling out a window of a tall building January, 1991. His client was a convicted drug distributor.

FLORENCE MARTIN - Accountant subcontractor for the CIA related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. Dead of three gunshot wounds.

SUZANNE COLEMAN - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to back of head, ruled a suicide, was pregnant at the time her death.

PAULA GROBER - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.

DANNY CASOLARO - Investigative reporter, investigating Mena airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Found dead with slit his wrists in the middle of his investigation.

PAUL WILCHER - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC Apartment. Had delivered report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.

JON PARNELL WALKER - Whitewater Investigator for Resolution Trust Corporation. Fell to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. Was investigating Morgan Guarantee scandal.

BARBARA WISE - Commerce Department Staffer, worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.

CHARLES MEISSNER - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.

DR.STANLEY HEARD - Chair National Chiropractic Heath Care Advisory committee died with his attorney.

STEVE DICKSON - Died in a small plane crash. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.

BARRY SEAL - Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas. Death was no accident.

JOHNNY LAWHORN Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Clinton in the trunk of a car left in his repair shop. Died when his car hit a utility pole.

STANLEY MUGGINS - Suicide. Investigated Madison Guarantee. His report was never released.

HERSHELL FRIDAY - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.

KEVIN IVES and DON HENRY - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas Airport Drug operation. This controversial case where initial report of death was due to falling asleep on railroad track. Later reports claim the two had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many people linked to the case died (see below) before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.

THE FOLLOWING SIX PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:

KEITH CONEY - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck in July, 1988.
KEITH McMASKLE - Died, stabbed 113 times, November 1988.
GREGORY COLLINS - Died from a gunshot wound, January 1989.
JEFF RHODES - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
JAMES MILAN. Found decapitated-Coroner ruled death due to natural causes.
JORDAN KETTLESON - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
RICHARD WINTERS - Winters was a suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. Was killed in set-up robbery in July 1989.

THE FOLLOWING FORMER CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
- MAJOR WILLIAM S. BARKLEY JR.
- CAPTAIN SCOTT J.REYNOLDS
- SGT. BRIAN HANEY
- SGT. TIM SABEL
- MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM ROBERTSON
- COL. WILLIAM DENSBERGER
- COL. ROBERT KELLY
- SPEC. GARY RHODES
- STEVE WILLIS
- ROBERT WILLIAMS
- CONWAY LeBLEU
- TODD McKEEHAN

And finally, BUDDY, the Presidential Dog, killed when he was struck by a car after having escaped his kennel.

Snope Debugging

[ October 24, 2005, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Boys on the Track case is definitely strange. I researched that one for a few years, on and off. Everything is shelved now though.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Strange, perhaps. Connected to Clinton? Oh, never mind...
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
FIJC
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL, I know what you mean. I don't even remember half of what I found, all of that stuff is tabbed in a filing cabinet at my apartment that hasn't even been looked at for the past two years. The last thing I can remember was wondering where the heck Micah Morrison has gone to and where in the world did the Leach report go to. I can remember why I was wondering where Micah Morrison was, but I can't remember why I was wondering where the Leach report was. I was thinking about pitching all of that stuff other day, actually, probably will. I am moving on to a different stage of my life anyway. [Smile]

[ October 24, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: FIJC ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sibir
Member
Member # 2647

 - posted      Profile for Sibir   Email Sibir   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush is as big a supporter of the Welfare/Warfare state as any recent president. If he's not shoveling money out the window into Iraq, he's burning it up creating new entitlement programs.

The republican party has finally returned to it's roots as a party of industrialists using federal power to advance their positions in the market. The once classical liberal strain of the republican party has been cleansed.

Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sibir - It's not that it's been cleansed, it's that it has almost no influence on this administration because Karl Rove knows we're twice as afraid of the Democrats as we are of the social conservatives.
Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sibir
Member
Member # 2647

 - posted      Profile for Sibir   Email Sibir   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by WarrsawPact:
Sibir - It's not that it's been cleansed, it's that it has almost no influence on this administration because Karl Rove knows we're twice as afraid of the Democrats as we are of the social conservatives.

The cleansing didn't happen recently. It was a gradual move away from classic liberalism and towards modern conservatism. The Cold War was a big catalyst for rooting the "isolationists" out of the party, thus clearing the way for the modern garrison state.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1