NationStates Jolt Archive

One being the worst and ten being the best. What do you guys think?

Five point five. He wasn't great, he didn't suck. (Monica took care of that)

One being the worst and ten being the best. What do you guys think?



Meh to Clinton, meh!

Meh to Clinton, meh!
*takes to the street and rallies everyone*

Meh! Meh! Meh!

Because of Chinagate, Clinton gets a 0 out of 10.

One being the worst and ten being the best. What do you guys think?
Using which criterion?

Economics?
Domestic Policy?
Social Policy?
Foreign Policy?
Sexual Prowess?
Leadership capability?

I'd have to rate him an overall 5 or 6 because IMO his good points were almost completely overshadowed by his bad points. Not Bad (a-la Carter) but no Kennedy/Regean either.

if he hadn't lucked out with a great economy (thanks to the tech boom... we can always rely on American ingenuity and business acumen), he would have been very unpopular.

as it is, he got (wrongly) much of the credit for the economy

imagine this:

What if our taxes hadn't been the highest since FDR... imagine how much MORE money could have fed the stock boom.

Granted, many of those tech stocks were overvalued, but Clinton had no problem taking credit for the mid-late 90s boom... even though he had almost nothing to do with it. In fact, his high tax rates helped to corral it.

All in all, Clinton was a great politician and a lousy human being. He was as two-faced a politician as I can remember, throwing different ideas to different groups.

Aside from China, Whitewater and Monica, he wasn't bad. So-so... I'd give him a 5.

He is second only to Reagan as the Greatest Republican President of the 20th Century.

(Before you jump: Think about it. Just about everything he did improved the lot of the GOP much more than his own party...)

Clinton was easily the best Republican president of the 20th century.

Using which criterion?

Economics?
Domestic Policy?
Social Policy?
Foreign Policy?
Sexual Prowess?
Leadership capability?

I'd have to rate him an overall 5 or 6 because IMO his good points were almost completely overshadowed by his bad points. Not Bad (a-la Carter) but no Kennedy/Regean either.

Just rate all to do with bill clinton while he was in the white house.

He was hot, for an old guy. I'd tap that.
He was an ok president, too.

*takes to the street and rallies everyone*

Meh! Meh! Meh!

Meh! Meh! Meh!Meh! Meh! Meh!Meh! Meh! Meh!

I think he did a great job until Monica. There, his true morals came through. However, that alone cannot erase the good he did.

I think he did a great job until Monica. There, his true morals came through. However, that alone cannot erase the good he did.
...That he liked women?

Clinton was easily the best Republican president of the 20th century.

That is true. He single handedly did more to destroy the death grip liberals had on this country than any Republican could ever have hoped. To this day, I somehow cannot believe it was accidental. Anyway, if that is his legacy it's not a bad one for a convicted felon and disbarred attorney.

Average to bad. I rate him at 4.5

Northern Ireland: good
Bosnia: good

Sudan: bad
Iraq: bad

rampant corporatist capitalism: bad

4.5 He could have done some things better. He kind of allowed for a rise in terrorism. Then all the lying. 4.5 for him.

8 out of 10, solely for his economic policy and his pro-free trade agenda.

Everyhting else: 5 ot of 10

Average: 6.5 out of 10. Not bad, but could have been better in several areas.

I personally laugh at the "he lied too much for my tastes." I bet half of them can't name a time he lied beyond the lewinsky incident

A long long time ago
I can still remember how an intern used to make me smile
And every time I get a chance
I get aroused and drop my pants
And maybe I'll be happy for a while

Monica's lips made me quiver
With a yelp I deliver
Rumours on the doorstep
How dare that little whore slip

Now they all say that I lied
with Hillary standing by my side
Kenneth Star won't stop 'till he's satisfied
The day the rumours die

I deny Miss Lewinsky and I
had a sexual relationship it's simply a lie
them good old boys on the Republican side
are not gonna let Slick Willy slide
not gonna let Slick Willy slide

I deny Miss Lewinsky and I
had a sexual relationship it's simply a lie
them good old boys on the Republican side
they just won't let Slick Willy slide

He didn't technically have sex with Monica. A blowjob is not sex. Monica could not get pregnent through swallowing.

Ummm... "Nobody died when Clinton lied." Can't say that for Bush though... Also, at least he tried with the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" thing. No so-called Patriot Act for Clinton either, or a and amendment banning flag desecration, or a federal marriage amendment. He was great on civil liberties. I'm not going to rate him as a person, because the whole Monica thing should not affect people's view of what he did for the country. But he is one of my personal favorites, despite the fact that I was a kid for the majority of his presidency.

I disrespected him for lying. I named my male ferret after him - for those who don't know, a ferret is in the weasel family. If I get a femaile I'll name her Monica.

Ummm... "Nobody died when Clinton lied." Can't say that for Bush though... Also, at least he tried with the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" thing. No so-called Patriot Act for Clinton either, or a and amendment banning flag desecration, or a federal marriage amendment. He was great on civil liberties. I'm not going to rate him as a person, because the whole Monica thing should not affect people's view of what he did for the country. But he is one of my personal favorites, despite the fact that I was a kid for the majority of his presidency.

so when Clinton knew where Usama was and did nothing about it... nobody died because of it?

Also, Clinton knew about Lewinsky and lied. Bush did not know if they had WMDs (we still don't... probably Saddam moved them to Syria)... simply being wrong on a prediction is not a case of lying.

If Clinton had been around during 9/11, I hope he would have signed somethign similar to the Patriot Act. Do you want terrorists walking down your sidewalk?

He might have been great on civil liberties, but he was one of our worst on financial liberties, taxing us up the wazoo.

Bush did not know if they had WMDs (we still don't... probably Saddam moved them to Syria)... simply being wrong on a prediction is not a case of lying.
DO I even have to try?

If Clinton had been around during 9/11, I hope he would have signed somethign similar to the Patriot Act. Do you want terrorists walking down your sidewalk?
Do you even know what the Patriot Act does? It doesn't give cops the innate ability to sense and arrest terrorists on sight, I will give you that hint.

I personally thought he was just okay, along with every other President I can remember except for Bush Jr. whom I have never liked one bit. I really don't expect much from todays politicians, but I do expect more than Bush Jr. (Why did we pick the biggest piece of scum we could find for the Republican side?).

Those of you who say he was the Greatest Republican President of the 20th century - If that were true then why did Republicans hate him and everything he did so much? To the point of military personell saying how they'd love to take arms against him and his administration. It's funny how no Republicans ever said this while he was in office.

Lets look at Bush Jr. for a second. I would say that he also is making his party look bad (a party I have nothing against on the whole but there are things I don't agree with - btw I am not a Democrat either - I actually choose people by their policies and not their party)*this goes for the whole neo-con administration*, but he is also making the U.S. look bad as well and he is working against civil rights so in my personal opinion he is damaging the United States, but I wouldn't call him a great Democrat. I think Bush is a lousy politician all the way around.

Anyone with any sense of decency will freely admit that both parties are full of evil liars that are interested in nothing more than money and power for them and their friends. If you think your party is angelic and pure and intends to make America great then you need to get your head examined.

Nixon was more liberal. Kindof scarey
:(

Ummm... "Nobody died when Clinton lied." Can't say that for Bush though...

Also, at least he tried with the whole "Don't ask, don't tell" thing.

No so-called Patriot Act for Clinton either, or a and amendment banning flag desecration,

or a federal marriage amendment.

He was great on civil liberties.

I'm not going to rate him as a person, because the whole Monica thing should not affect people's view of what he did for the country. But he is one of my personal favorites, despite the fact that I was a kid for the majority of his presidency.
You are not a liberal. You're a slave to the Democratic party. I'll address each claim.

1. Clinton bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, leading to the deaths of over 100,000 people.

2. He banned gay people from the military.

3. Anti-terrorism act (1995)

4. Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

5. Staunchly supported the death penalty and war on drugs.

Re-evaluate your views from outside the DNC.

What's wrong with the death penalty and a proper war on drugs?

Thank you, Ihatevacations. The patriot act is just a lame attempt by the government to use terrorism as a sheild to involve themselves in our private lives. As for you, person who quoted me, you seem so obsessed with maintaining a anti-clinton agenda, i suggest you find out about the facts before criticizing me. I spend hourse researching these things.

Oh for pete's sake, if we're going to discuss him lying can we PLEASE pick something other than the Monica incident?? Show me a married man who would have told the truth about that on international television! Besides which, I couldn't care less where the "presidential penis" is or has been! I care more what he thinks about domestic and international policy. The Monica incident should have stayed where it belonged, between him, Monica and Hillary.

And Clinton apparently terrified the republicans - never have I seen such an intense witch hunt against a president - trying to impeach a president for lying about infidelity is ridiculous.

Both the country and my own life pretty much maintained the status quo during his 8yrs so I rate him as pretty good.

At the very least, he didn't have me quaking in my boots over civil rights and seperation of church and state the way Bush, Jr. has!

Oh and btw - assuming she runs, I will consider myself privileged to vote for Hillary in 2008.

One being the worst and ten being the best. What do you guys think?

Minus 2!

You are not a liberal. You're a slave to the Democratic party. I'll address each claim.

1. Clinton bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, leading to the deaths of over 100,000 people.

2. He banned gay people from the military.

3. Anti-terrorism act (1995)

4. Defense of Marriage Act (1996)

5. Staunchly supported the death penalty and war on drugs.

Re-evaluate your views from outside the DNC.

Swimmingpool, I do not consider myself a slave to democrats, just because i agree with them on a majority of things. Rather, I'm quite distant from Kerry on the Political Compass, I reside next to the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. Did I ever say that Clinton was perfect? No, of course not. But to adress your rebutal, I am a nationalist. I value the lives of American soldiers over all others. To me, losing a thousand of our own troops due to our Presidents need for oil is much more significant than the bombing of a pharmacuetical factory. At least he had a basis, the factory was working with chemicals. Clinton, very early into his presidency signed a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. It backfired, as statistics show, but that is not President Clintons fault, it is simply proof of the ignorance and bigotry still within our country. President Clinton did not sign a anti-terrorism act in 1995, perhaps you are referring to the one signed in 1996 called the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ? There is a very big diffrence between that and the patriot act. Above personal opinions, I value the constitution. Although I disagree with what President Clinton did by signing the Defense of Marriage act, that is not a constitutional amendment, and the division of powers in our country is so that a state was already guaranteed regulation of marriage laws within itself. Also, he was not quoted saying "We must protect the sanctity of marriage." Nope, that was Jr. As for the death penalty, my jury is still out on that one. A side on it is hard to take. All i know, is that the constitution guarantees everyone a right to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness." Whether the right to life has circumstances under which it can be ruptured is a matter that should be left to an objective mind on the supreme court. Also, I should mention that Clinton was a centrist... So its natural that we have some differences.

...never have I seen such an intense witch hunt against a president - trying to impeach a president for lying

Did we forget Richard Nixon?

He didn't technically have sex with Monica. A blowjob is not sex. Monica could not get pregnent through swallowing.

Just because you "can't" get pregnant doesn't mean you didn't have sex. :headbang:

Bill Clinton is a very honest man who loves his wife :p :D

Who cares? What goes on in a bedroom between two informed consenting adults is no one's business. This goes for the President, gay couples, and everyone else.

On the surface, average.

He had few foreign policy crisises to deal with, with the Soviet Union collapsing a few years earlier. He defered dealing with Iraq to Bush. And obviously he didn't take the AQ threat anywhere NEAR seriously enough after the WTC bombing in '93. Huge minus there. We'll give him a 'C'

Domestically he was fine, but he was dealt a hand of aces thanks to Wall Street and the internet economy generating trillions in federal revenues from a huge economic expansion. It would have been pretty hard to f--- it up quite honestly. It would have been nice if he had done more to reform the federal gov't, but we know that's too much too hope for from any politician. We'll give him a 'B'.

And then of course there is China. If we find out in 20-30 years that he really did sell our secrets for polical favors, he goes down as the worst President in history...it won't even be close.

Did we forget Richard Nixon?


No, "we" did not forget Richard Nixon - and if you are going to quote me, please do so properly. As anyone can see from my post, I said "lying about infidelity" - infidelity had NOTHING to do with Nixon's impeachment proceedings. HE was accused of lying about a burglary of a Federal office and theft of confidential papers which could have have affected the outcome of the election.

apples and oranges

Who cares? What goes on in a bedroom between two informed consenting adults is no one's business. This goes for the President, gay couples, and everyone else.

Excuse me, but since when has the Oval Office been a bedroom?

So what exactly happened in china?

Excuse me, but since when has the Oval Office been a bedroom?


lmao :p

Well, its a part of his residence, so i don't care. They were still two consenting informed adults. Would you hunt down a couple who did the same thing in one of their offices?

So what exactly happened in china?

http://www.richardpoe.com/column.cgi?story=125

"When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, China presented little threat to the United States. Chinese missiles "couldn’t hit the side of a barn," notes Timothy W. Maier of Insight magazine. Few could reach North America and those that made it would likely miss their targets.

Thanks to Bill Clinton, China can now hit any city in the USA, using state-of-the-art, solid-fueled missiles with dead-accurate, computerized guidance systems and multiple warheads.

China probably has suitcase nukes as well. These enable China to strike by proxy – equipping nuclear-armed terrorists to do their dirty work, while the Chinese play innocent. Some intelligence sources claim that China maintains secret stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, for just such contingencies.

In 1997, Clinton allowed China to take over the Panama Canal. The Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa leased the ports of Cristobal and Balboa, on the east and west openings of the canal respectively, thus controlling access both ways. A public outcry stopped Clinton in 1998 from leasing California’s Long Beach Naval Yard to the Chinese firm COSCO. Even so, China can now strike U.S. targets easily from their bases in Panama, Vancouver and the Bahamas.

How did China catch up so fast? Easy. We sold them all the technology they needed – or handed it over for free. Neither neglect nor carelessness are to blame. Bill Clinton did it on purpose."

Well, its a part of his residence, so i don't care. They were still two consenting informed adults. Would you hunt down a couple who did the same thing in one of their offices?

Nope. The President's residence is on the second floor of the White House. If other government officials had done that in their office, then lied about it I'm sure there would have been repercussions.

So that's what you guys are whining about? China catching up? God forbid anyone present a challenge to the US

Also, I should mention that Clinton was a centrist... So its natural that we have some differences.
Clinton was right-wing.

I'll leave your other points for the Republican slaves/sycophants/apologists to refute - you know who you are!

Well, I just feel compelled to take issue with your disgusting assertion of American (white?) supremacism. 100,000 Sudanese lives are objectively worth more than 1,700 Americans. Everyone is equal.

Welcome to the forum! See here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=430307) for an overview of my political opinions.

Minus 2!
This has got to be pure partisanship!

I think he was one of the greatest who ever lived. Why? Because 100 years after he's dead, the right wingers will still be moaning how everything from WWII to the Zombie Apocalypse (2019) was 100% his fault.

Now *that's* a legacy! Booyah!

That is not exactly what I meant, but still, what America did was no more right than what happened on 9-11, but it was a suspected chemical weapons factory. It was a mistake, and its terrible that lives were lost because of it. By the way, the US death toll in Iraq now exceeds 1700. I still think that a President, who is supposed to protect his people, is sending them to a sure death because of his personal interests in the middle east. Note that his focus was not on bin Laden, but rather on Sadam Hussein who was not part of the original war plan.

So that's what you guys are whining about? China catching up? God forbid anyone present a challenge to the US

No someone asked what the deal was. No one was whining.

As far as I'm aware he had some rather tasty global warming laws that were helping until Georgey boy came in and put a stop to that evil, outdated practice.

By the way, the US death toll in Iraq now exceeds 1700. I still think that a President, who is supposed to protect his people, is sending them to a sure death because of his personal interests in the middle east. Note that his focus was not on bin Laden, but rather on Sadam Hussein who was not part of the original war plan.

So what do you think about JFK and Johnson?

I like Billy. As a non-American i cud hav a distorted view of the man but i jus picture The Clint da oval office jammin on his sax, smokin a joint nd gettin hed of a reasonably hot chick. Now dats livin da presidential dream :)
Great Fella

I think he was a good president. If he would of been allowed to run again, he would still be the president today.

He was an excellent statesman, that had a clear and transparent foreign policy and who importantly you could understand.

Clinton was a great president, from the eyes of an international observer judging him on what international observers see, i.e. foreign policy!

(probs the reason so many people outside the US hate Bush!)

Clinton was a very good president.

Strong economic policy, good foriegn policy and not too bad social policy.

And the whole Monica situation; the cream on the presidential cake.

Clinton is highly overrated by most Democrats. He wasn't the worst, don't get me wrong, he was just really bad - but, really, you can't do too extremely poorly when you don't do anything - but the stupid things he did do, such as letting Osama go on more than one occasion and messing with Sudan made him much shittier than average. Not to mention the random people that kept dying off mysteriously throughout his two terms in office. And he's overrated, as well, because his "economic policy" was nonexistent; the nineties boom was A.) due to technology, B.) due to Reagan, and C.) artificially inflated. It had nothing to do with Clinton.

Ihatevacations']I personally laugh at the "he lied too much for my tastes." I bet half of them can't name a time he lied beyond the lewinsky incident

From a sight I book marked quite awhile ago:

July 1991: Question: "Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?" Answer: "I've never broken any drug law." - Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B
Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.

Then he said:

March 29th, 1992: "I've never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two..."

Later, in that same interview, "No one has ever asked me that question point-blank."

- The New York Times, March 30th, 1992, p.A15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"

"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just a few gems of many. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/LIES.html

From a sight I book marked quite awhile ago:

July 1991: Question: "Have you ever used Marijuana or any illegal drugs?" Answer: "I've never broken any drug law." - Arkansas Gazette, July 24th, 1991, p. 8B
Asked this 3 times, on 3 separate occasions, by 3 different interviewers, your Great White Hope repeated this claim. Until faced with irrefutable proof, that is.

Then he said:

March 29th, 1992: "I've never broken a state law. But when I was in England I experimented with marijuana a time or two..."
Which makes him a liar how? I wasn't aware laws in random US states applied to foreign nations.


Later, in that same interview, "No one has ever asked me that question point-blank."

More irrelevant lies.


On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that."

...did you read this how I did?
" is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."
"for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut"

The entire race was about the economic strategy, which's focus was the middle class tax cuts?


On Sept. 8,1992, Bill Clinton said, "The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."

In response to a Bush-Quayle ad that people with incomes of as little as $36,000 would pay more taxes under the Clinton plan, Bill Clinton said on Oct. 1, 1992, "It's a disgrace to the American people that the president (Bush) of the United States would make a claim that is so baseless, that is so without foundation, so shameless in its attempt to get votes under false pretenses."

Yet the NY TIMES in the analysis of Clinton's budget wrote, "There are tax increases for every family making more than $20,000 a year!"

"While Clinton continued to defend his middle-class tax cut publicly, he privately expressed the view to his advisers that it was intellectually dishonest." (The Agenda, by Bob Woodward, p. 31)


Good job, 1/3, BARELY. Anyone could assume any reason for tax increases for families making mroe then $20k a year


Go play your partisan-bullshit games elsewhere, I don't want to be the thimble.

Ihatevacations']Good job, 1/3, BARELY. Anyone could assume any reason for tax increases for families making mroe then $20k a year

He specifically said that only people who make more that $200,000 would have their taxes raised.

Go play your partisan-bullshit games elsewhere, I don't want to be the thimble.


You, of all people, are accusing someone of being a partisan? That’s funny.

Clinton was the subject of a viscious right-wing witch hunt. None of the wild claims about him have been even nearly proven. You elect a president for his foreign and domestic policies, not his sex life. His sexual misdemeanours affected his job not one whit until the rightist thugs decided to play the so-called 'immorality card. Americas standing in the world was at an all time high as opposed to its now all time low. And if you think that's unumportant, you don't understand foreign affairs. 7 out of 10 from me. As for the ridiculous comment about 'the people that mysteriously died' during the witch hunt, each death has been proven to be nothing to do with him. Indeed one of the dead was a dear friend and it was that, that finally took his will to continue the fight against the dirty rumour mill. America will be lucky if it gets another fine president like him again for decades.

Ihatevacations']I personally laugh at the "he lied too much for my tastes." I bet half of them can't name a time he lied beyond the lewinsky incident

I wasn't really trying to offend anyone with that statement. I myself am actually a liberal, but a moderate one. I describe myself politically as a fiscally conservative independent democrat. I will go with any idea that helps the country, yet I tend to lean more towards liberal. But I have no problem voting republican or independent. Party really means nothing to me. To give two examples, I will vote for my governor Bob Riley (republican) because if he chooses to run again I think he's the best candidate. I also believe the worst president ever was Andrew Jackson, he was responsible for the trail of tears. I myself am Cherokee. That was a horrible course of action and honestly I hope he pays for that in the next life. Personally I would give Clinton a nine, but I thought it wrong to vote in this poll, I was trying to conduct it from an independent stand point.

Clinton was the subject of a viscious right-wing witch hunt. None of the wild claims about him have been even nearly proven. You elect a president for his foreign and domestic policies, not his sex life. His sexual misdemeanours affected his job not one whit until the rightist thugs decided to play the so-called 'immorality card. Americas standing in the world was at an all time high as opposed to its now all time low. And if you think that's unumportant, you don't understand foreign affairs. 7 out of 10 from me. As for the ridiculous comment about 'the people that mysteriously died' during the witch hunt, each death has been proven to be nothing to do with him. Indeed one of the dead was a dear friend and it was that, that finally took his will to continue the fight against the dirty rumour mill. America will be lucky if it gets another fine president like him again for decades.

First of all, Clinton's foreign policy sucked. He was a lollygagging pussy. Second, I don't give a rat's ass what he did with Monica. Third, when the hell did they prove every single one of the eighty-or-so deaths he's associated with wrong? Fourth, if you can't spell unimportant, I seriously doubt you are intulijant enuff to understand foreign policy. Fifth, I noticed that you could even manage to name one thing he did off the top of your head to support your opinions of him. Sixth, thanks for proving my point that he is massively overrated.

One being the worst and ten being the best. What do you guys think?
For a second there, I thought this was going to be an "Am I Hot Or Not?" thread.

Did we forget Richard Nixon?

I have a poll up on Nixon too. They (Clinton and Nixon) get compared to each other a good bit. Please vote in the Nixon poll too!

For a second there, I thought this was going to be an "Am I Hot Or Not?" thread.

Dude What?!?

So Justianen = Bushanomics?

He specifically said that only people who make more that $200,000 would have their taxes raised.
From one specific plan. A plan to increase, say, sales tax would effect everybody. This one round of tax increases only affected the wealthy.

I get a kick out of all the Bush apologists who are dissing Clinton, especially given this fact:

Poll: Clinton Leaves With High Marks (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/01/18/politics/main265224.shtml)

And how is Georgy boy doing?

Poll: Bush approval mark nears low (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/23/bush.poll/)

I now turn the thread back to the apologists.....

Clinton was the subject of a viscious right-wing witch hunt. None of the wild claims about him have been even nearly proven. You elect a president for his foreign and domestic policies, not his sex life.
{*snip*}
Speaking for yourself. ;)

Ihatevacations']What's wrong with the death penalty and a proper war on drugs?

I support the death penalty, as it makes sense that if you do something particularly horrid, you should die.

The "War on Drugs", however, is doomed to failure, just as Prohibition was. People will always do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.

So that's what you guys are whining about? China catching up? God forbid anyone present a challenge to the US

A government that artificially keeps it's currency undervalued, has no environmental laws and shoots dissenters... is that the sort of world you want to live in?

I'm not american, but i saw Bill as a good president. That has done more good than bad.

not many political things he did where smart i heard, but still. He had the looks.


I don't care about the whole other thing....you know.

First of all, Clinton's foreign policy sucked. He was a lollygagging pussy. Second, I don't give a rat's ass what he did with Monica. Third, when the hell did they prove every single one of the eighty-or-so deaths he's associated with wrong? Fourth, if you can't spell unimportant, I seriously doubt you are intulijant enuff to understand foreign policy. Fifth, I noticed that you could even manage to name one thing he did off the top of your head to support your opinions of him. Sixth, thanks for proving my point that he is massively overrated.

Interesting that the hateful right waste no time resorting to personal insults. One spelling mistake makes neither a genius nor a fool. However, for anyone to mock the intelligence of another based on it, does reveal a bigot and a hypocrite.
You apply the word 'sucked' to Clintons (no ' needed) foreign policy, that's your opinion and despite your views, you still live in a country that allows you to say so. You describe eight years of American diplomacy as run by a 'lollygaggin pussy'. It's probably inappropriate for you to critcise someone elses posts as perhaps not up to your standards of intelligence, whatever they may be.
You give your view of Clinton and I give mine, try and keep a level head, it's not difficult.
I'm pleased that you 'don't give a rats ass what he did with Monica'.
Would you be kind enough to point me to any evidence of Clintons involvement in the 'eighty or so' deaths you mention? I'd appreciate it.
You seem to have overlooked my comment that Clinton raised Americas reputation in the world, something the current president has reversed,. I'll also point out that he made progress on environmental issues, something the current president has reversed. He expanded the 'war' on drugs. He managed to improve education. He forced Nato to intervene in the ex Yugoslavia, a much more noble adventure than the illegal invasion of Iraq, with hugely superior results. He tried to restrict handgun sales. He introduced legislation to protect the jobs of parents who care for sick children.
He worked tirelessly to reduce trade restrictions.
I have little doubt that most of his acheivements will always be mocked by the right because he failed to get himself photographed continuously with admiring troops and big, shiny guns. He, along with Tony Blair, finally knocked together the heads of the warring factions in Northern Ireland, something else the American right care not one jot about, despite the fact that it reduced terror almost at a stroke.
I could also list his failures but the vitriolic right do that on a regular basis, even the lies.
Your sarcastic comment that I 'proved the point that he is 'massively' overrated is incorrect, that's just you.
If you find the time and have the will to answer me, try doing it without insults.

And if you find any grammatical mistakes in my post, may I ask you to remain civilised and continue the debate properly?

He specifically said that only people who make more that $200,000 would have their taxes raised.

"The only people who will pay more income taxes are the wealthiest 2 percent, those living in households making over $200,000 a year."

Unlike you I read the SPECIFIC details, you know like "race" and "economic astrategy" being two different things. I'm not saying what you said wasn't true, I did suggest, however, that you could assume any reason BESIDES income tax increases that people earning mroe than $20k paying more taxes, in general



You, of all people, are accusing someone of being a partisan? That’s funny.
I may be a brown kettle but you are pitch black pot

The "War on Drugs", however, is doomed to failure, just as Prohibition was. People will always do what they want in the privacy of their own homes.
I mean illegal drug running from other countries, I don't give a rats ass about people sitting at hom smoking weed or whatever they want

As far as I'm aware he had some rather tasty global warming laws that were helping until Georgey boy came in and put a stop to that evil, outdated practice.
Clinton's laughable "laws" were voluntary, and he didn't do a thing to help the cause of the Kyoto agreement in America. Clinton was no friend to the environment.

I think he was a good president. If he would of been allowed to run again, he would still be the president today.
Explain yourself.

Explain yourself.
He has high approval ratings, the chance of him winning a third term is pretty damn good..

Ihatevacations']He has high approval ratings, the chance of him winning a third term is pretty damn good..
No, I was more asking Stephistan, a supposed liberal and pacifist, why she thinks that Bush-lite was a good president.

Originally Posted by Stephistan
I think he was a good president. If he would of been allowed to run again, he would still be the president today.

Actually, Bush might have beaten him. Remember that Perot took votes away from Bush Sr. in 1992 and Dole in 1996 (though Dole probably couldn't have beaten him anyway... the guy had almost no charisma).

Bush/Clinton 2000 would have been a tight race.

I personally despise it when people mix personal characteristics with the actual presidency. He was a damned good President, but lets just say that many people shouldn't necessarily trust him as a wounderful husband (at least at the time; people change). That's really an obvious flaw with democracy, a lot of people vote based on looks, personallity, that sort of thing; rather than who is more fit to run a country; but of coarse, nothing's perfect. Also, he used to be very popular, and perhaps before the 2000 election, Clinton could have easily won a third term. But once dirty politics, bias radio, and bias television kicks in, it's time to start demonizing Bill Clinton.

I'd give him about a four out of ten. There were some good things he did, such as the Brady Bill, the marginal tax increases of '93, the appointment of Robert Rubin to the Secretary of the Treasury, and the intervention in Bosnia/Herzigovinia and Kosovo. That being said, the biggest plus that happened on his watch (the massive economic boom) wasn't his responsibility so much as it was Robert Rubin's and Alan Greenspan's victory of managing inflation (although to be fair, that policy has helped to set some of the conditions for the current period of stagflation).

As a side note, there is no "Reagan economic boom". His policies skyrocketed the deficit and led directly to the recessions of '82, the Savings and Loan scandal of '87, and another recession in '91-'92, all of which was a hell of a lot more severe than most conservative pundits call them today. As such, you can't credit Reagan with the economic boom any more than you can call the Fifties and Sixties the Hoover and Coolidge Miracle. Furthermore, I always find it ironic that for the seven and a half years that the economy was expanding on Clinton's watch, he was not at all responsible, but the stagnant economic situation we're in now is all his fault, because three months of that now-five-year stagnancy was under his leadership.

Back on the main subject, he also did a great deal of really, really bad things as well. Don't Ask, Don't Tell, DOMA, welfare "reform", NAFTA, and the biggie, which was our failure to intervene in Rwanda, were all policies that have smashed people who needed help the most, which is the measure by which I at least judge a presidency and a person.

Finally, there were some mind-bogglingly stupid decisions on his part that hamstrung him from taking any kind of effective action. From the early part of his presidency where he stopped up an airport for five hours so he could get his hair cut on AF1 to blocking up Jackson's Hole for a full hour (which takes quite a bit of effort, considering you can walk from one end of that town to the other in about ten minutes) with his presidential motorcade, to Monica, he had a knack for doing whatever it took to make it impossible to do anything positive legislatively.