User talk:66.170.192.250

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Admiration for Communists in "My Life" (And More)

(Moved from Talk:Bill Clinton. --ElKevbo 21:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC) )

Admiration for Khrushchev, a man who had nuclear missiles pointed at the United States: "a reformer and fascinating character..." page 162, My Life, hardcover.

Admiration for Karl Marx: Clinton gives an adorable story about visiting the grave of Karl Marx in London while plotting his "conscientious objector" status to avoid serving his country in the Vietnam conflict. Evidently he had a problem with putting an end to the communist-led genocide in Vietnam.

There is furthermore a cute anecdote about visiting the USSR while that state was developing and distributing weapons to kill Americans in Vietnam and elsewhere, see pages 167-171, My Live, hardcover.

There are lies about Richard Nixon all throughout this book. He accuses Nixon of being a "segregationist" even though his administration started affirmative action and the Minority Business Development Agency within two months of coming into office.

Clinton also fails to mention that the Republicans began the civil rights movement immediately after the Civil War (during which they led the Union armies) and out-voted the Democrats on every significant piece of civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s: the civil rights acts of '57, '60, '64, '65, and '68.

The Republicans out-voted the Democrats in favor of these bills by margins of about 20 to 25 percent despite Clinton's dishonest caricature of Republicans as "segregationists."

Moreover, he accuses Nixon of being a traitor on page 141 of My Life. Well, at least Nixon did not abandon his country at a time of war and never criticized the United States on foreign soil.

Clinton wrote about his admiration for Hispanic people in "My Life." Recently, Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia to say that Muslims are being terrorized in the U.S. by the Bush administration.

But it didn't seem to bother these civil rights champions when they sent a ridiculous commando squad to seek out Elian Gonzalez, a seven-year-old LEGAL immigrant who committed no crimes while living with his family in Miami.

Civil rights didn't matter then, did it? Compassionate liberals, sure, whatever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.170.192.250 (talk • contribs) 15:27, January 1, 2007.

And this has exactly what to do with this encyclopedia article...? --ElKevbo 21:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC) -

This relates to the article harping on his "honors and accolades" and "humanitarian work." To be fair, his "humanitarian work" should be contrasted by his acts that were not so humanitarian. This way, we see both sides of complex Clinton: The man who would raise money for AIDS, and the man who would order a siege on a seven-year-old.

Legal Immigrant? By what standards? Elian Gonzalez was the legal son of a Cuban citizen. There are NO conditions in the world where a child should be taken from their parents, unless the parent committed some atrocious crime against their child. Being a communist may meet some evil standard, but it does not disqualify you as a parent. As a father who has children to a mother who is a citizen of another country, I would be appalled if she could spirit them away to another country without my permission, then that country withhold my legal rights to that child. You need to get your facts right, before you make such a commentary. Orangemarlin 01:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

--> Facts right: Check U.S. immigration policy toward Cuba. My understanding is that Elian was a legal immigrant. I suppose your thesis is that Elian was not a legal immigrant. I'd like to know what crime he committed. Whether his father claims his child was taken away from him is not relevant to Elian's legal status in the U.S. There is nothing in the law that says "a normally legal immigrant child shall be deemed illegal if his father in the child's parent country claims the child was taken away from him by a vengeful mother." None of this really matters. Legal or not, the Clinton administration's tactics in seizing Elian Gonzalez were seen as overzealous and offensive by many observers. And back to the main theme, it goes against his "humanitarian" reputation, especially in the eyes of Cuban exiles and other groups (namely Republicans) sympathetic to the Cuban exiles' POV.

Legal or not? LOL. By the way, could you learn how to edit your comments so they're legible? And how about signing your posts? Simple things. Orangemarlin 03:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there a point to this, other than the self-righteous pontification? This is not what talk pages are for.Jasper23 02:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

--> This is a legitimate call for balance. Again, in the article, Clinton is lauded as a humanitarian. Obviously the Cuban exiles and those sympathetic to the exiles would disgaree.

Wait, I thought your main point was that he is a pinko commie hippie? Jasper23 02:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) --> There is some evidence that he was sympathetic to communists and that he was part of and influenced by the so-called "hippie" culture of 60s. Really, the main point is to challenge his reputation as an unquestioned compassionate humanitarian, which is obviously a very touchy subject for Clinton lovers.

First off, place a colon at the beginning of your response if responding directly to another editor's comments (it indents it). Second, please sign your posts by placing four ~ at the end. In regards to Elian's legal status - all immigration from Cuba in this manner (swimming/boating across the gulf) is considered illegal by US law. However, if the person manages to make it to dry land they are usually allowed to apply for political asylum, if they are stopped before they reach land they are returned to Cuba (see Wet Feet/Dry Feet Policy). Unfortunately for Elian, he was found at sea. Also, since his mother was deceased his dad would normally have custody of the child. He was in no way a legal immigrant to the US. In regards to mentioning it in the article, I hardly believe it is relevant enough. While the deportation of elian might have been a bit overzealous, it had no effect on the vast majority of Americans and was in accordance to established law and policy. In regards to Clinton's "admiration for communists," I don't see how any of your examples warrants even a brief mention in his article. None of it is remarkable. None of it is relevant. Mbc362 04:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like original research to me. Have fun grinding your axe. Jasper23 04:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have any specific suggestions to help improve this article, please make them. Otherwise, please take the discussion elsewhere. --ElKevbo 04:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

--> See what happens when one challenges a liberal hero's compassion? Compare this article with Newt Gingrich or George W. Bush and tell me honestly Wikipedia is fair. With Gingrich, the Wikipedia propaganda machine accuses him of leaving his wife while she had cancer. Interesting. But Clinton's professed admiration for communists, his lies about Richard Nixon, his lies about the Republican Party's history, and his sending of a commando squad after a seven-year-old aren't relevant. Happy brainwashing, folks. What a pack of liars. And NO, I will not shut up or take the discussion everywhere. I will not be intimidated by the left-wing academic establishment. I'm sick of tired of having to be quiet in academic settings. I'm sick of tired of sitting there politely and allowing the endless stream of left-wing lies pass right by. If you lie, you will be challenged. You don't like it? It offends your hero? Tough.

First of all, you need to read up on WP:CIVIL, because it will help your cause. Second, you need to sign your comments, because that is what we do here. Third, use a colon to indent your comments so that we can easily read to whom you are responding. Finally, please discuss how to improve the article. If you feel that he is supportive of communists, give us verifiable sources. This is an encyclopedia not a method of standing on a soapbox and yelling out your POV. Orangemarlin 18:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

--> Agreed. Wikipedia isn't for my soapboxing just as Wikipedia isn't for your propaganda. All I'm asking is that Wikipedia be fair. I know that's too much for some liberals to handle. Newt leaves his wife while she has cancer, and Clinton is a compassionate humanitarian. Whatever, sure. Lies and propaganda score a victory today, congratulations to you. (I gave you verifibable sources. I gave you quote, book, and page number. What else do you want? Publisher company? We had a big fight over on the Jose Maria Aznar page about a year ago with something similar. He was called a self-described "independent fascist" at the very top of the page without any verification yet the moderator did not seem to have a problem with it. With Clinton, I actually gave his own book and page number. Pick up the book, and read it yourself.)

We have asked you numerous times to sign your posts. It is quite simple, all you must do is add four ~ or click the signature button at the top of the editing box. Please do this. While you gave several examples of his "admiration for communists" you failed to give any explanation as to how this constituted admiration, and why it was relevant to this article. Khrushchev did make several major reforms in the USSR. Some people might find him fascinating. Some people also might find Stalin, Hitler or Pol Pot fascinating, that doesn't mean they believe the person is admirable. Your other examples were just your own personal view. Traveling to Marx's grave or the USSR does not mean he admires communism. Nixon traveled to China, does that mean he too admires communism? Unless you can show (with sources, not your own personal views) how any of these experiences affected his life/decision making they are not relevant. In regards to his "lies" about Nixon, if you have verifiable sources I see no reason why they couldn't be included. By the way, Nixon did not start affirmative action, it was JFK. I have already explained why elian is not relevant enough to be mentioned. If you have a problem with Newt Gingrich's article, you should address it on that talk page, not Clinton's. Finally, please read WP:CIVIL. Your posts have contained several violations of this policy. Continued violations may get you banned from editing.--Mbc362 19:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to waste my valuable time to answer your charges, because right now the world doesn't need me. I have no clue why you refuse to add a colon so that you can indent, but I'll ignore your refusal to be a good Wikipedian, because my job isn't to convert you into a civil person. That's your choice. I have not participated in the Clinton article in the past because I have personal insight, and I cannot be NPOV, but I will comment herein.
Admiration for Khrushchev, a man who had nuclear missiles pointed at the United States:

"a reformer and fascinating character..." page 162, My Life, hardcover.

Nikita Khrushchev was a reformer given the fact that he replaced Stalin. He was also fascinating. By making these statements, there is no indication that someone is a Communist. I admire Steve Yzerman, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't make me a hockey player.
Admiration for Karl Marx:

Clinton gives an adorable story about visiting the grave of Karl Marx in London while plotting his "conscientious objector" status to avoid serving his country in the Vietnam conflict. Evidently he had a problem with putting an end to the communist-led genocide in Vietnam.

How many conscientious objectors were there to the Vietnam war? Thousands? I don't know the fact. As for going to the grave of Karl Marx, it is a tourist site. It does not make someone a communist.
There is furthermore a cute anecdote about visiting the USSR while that state was developing and distributing weapons to kill Americans in Vietnam and elsewhere, see pages 167-171, My Live, hardcover.
Cute anecdote? I'm glad a future leader of the US visited the USSR to learn about it. We were not at war with the USSR at the time, he had a legal visa to enter the country, he did not help build the weapons, etc.
There are lies about Richard Nixon all throughout this book. He accuses Nixon of being a "segregationist" even though his administration started affirmative action and the Minority Business Development Agency within two months of coming into office.
I think Congress put Affirmative Action into law. A lot of politicians in the 60's were segregationists. And if Clinton made an error in his biography, wow, I'm pretty sure that never happened in the past.
Clinton also fails to mention that the Republicans began the civil rights movement immediately after the Civil War (during which they led the Union armies) and out-voted the Democrats on every significant piece of civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s: the civil rights acts of '57, '60, '64, '65, and '68.
After the Civil War, the Republicans were the progressive party and the Democrats were the party of the South. Ancient History. As for the more recent Civil Rights acts, Northern Liberals of both parties ensured the acts were passed. And Lyndon Johnson basically flogged his party with the body of JFK to force passage of these laws. The Southern Democrats who fought the acts are now Republicans. Wow.
The Republicans out-voted the Democrats in favor of these bills by margins of about 20 to 25 percent despite Clinton's dishonest caricature of Republicans as "segregationists."
See Above.
Moreover, he accuses Nixon of being a traitor on page 141 of My Life. Well, at least Nixon did not abandon his country at a time of war and never criticized the United States on foreign soil.
I'm an ex-Navy officer, and I've criticized this country. I'm glad he did. The Vietnam war took the lives of too many kids, it was poorly run, etc. etc.
Clinton wrote about his admiration for Hispanic people in "My Life." Recently, Al Gore went to Saudi Arabia to say that Muslims are being terrorized in the U.S. by the Bush administration.
Huh? You see something wrong with Hispanic people? And what's Al Gore got to do with your rant about Clinton?
But it didn't seem to bother these civil rights champions when they sent a ridiculous commando squad to seek out Elian Gonzalez, a seven-year-old LEGAL immigrant who committed no crimes while living with his family in Miami.
Discussed that. You were wrong.
OK, I fed the troll. I apologize, but I couldn't stand it any more. I'll take some drugs soon. Orangemarlin 19:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


--> Nice strawman technique! For example, I never said Clinton was a communist; I said he had an admiration for communists as is clearly evidenced by his book which I cited above. However, he was actually more likely to reduce the size government than most Democrats.

On Vietnam, he offers little explanation as to why he dodged the draft. I don't know what his reasons were so I'm offering a solution. Given his history, I think he was probably opposed to stopping the communist genocide. He's not the type to pull the trigger.

On Elian, Al Gore was in the Clinton administration. He was one of the leading voices on the Elian situation. He falsely accuses Bush of things that Gore actually did himself. The point is to challenge the phony "humanitarian" ethos of the Clinton administration. I'm not saying the good stuff shouldn't be there. I'm saying there should be a balance.

I'm still curious to know what crime Elian committed that was so egregious as to prompt Clinton to send a commando squad after him. You want to justify it, fine. Again, the point is to challenge the unquestioned "humanitarian" label of Clinton. And again, keep the good stuff; balance with the not-so-good stuff.

And no, I have no problem with Hispanics considering that I am one.

We can move this forum elsewhere if it offends Wikipedia's strict "question us and die" philosophy. Any suggestions?

I suggest you read WP:OR, WP:BLP, WP:POV, my previous posts, and sign your posts.--Mbc362 21:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please move this discussion elsewhere. --ElKevbo 21:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../6/6/2E/User_talk%7E66.170.192.250.html"