NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error.

Okay, I actually laughed at this. I mean, I thought Clinton was a far better President than Bush, but more honest?!?

No way. Clinton was just better at getting away with lies. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html



Okay, I actually laughed at this. I mean, I thought Clinton was a far better President than Bush, but more honest?!?

No way. Clinton was just better at getting away with lies. :p

Compared to Dubya, GOEBBELS is honest!

Clinton may not have been more honest, but I'd much rather have a leader who lies about his sexual exploits, than one who lies about war, etc.

Clinton lied about war, too. He used lies to drag us into that Eastern Europe mess.

emmm id like to consider intervention in kosovo as one of the good things NATO did. i was only liek 7 when it happened, but hey, that place was a mess and needed to be sorted out

Atleast Clinton know what he was talking about most of the time.
You can hardly say thet about Bush.

Clinton lied about war, too. He used lies to drag us into that Eastern Europe mess.

At least when Clinton said "mission accomplished", it was.

At least when Clinton said "mission accomplished", it was.

Bush's mission was accomplished; we got Hussein and verified the existence of WMD's (or the lack thereof). Ever gotten into a hole so deep you can't dig yourself out? That's where we're at today in Iraq. I don't believe Bush lied, but I do believe he could have used better judgement than sending half our military to Iraq (I know I'm exaggerating). The more you got there, the more you have to get out. I'm glad we got Hussein, but we can and will not ever stamp out terrorism. However, that doesn't mean we should surrender to it; just use different tactics.

People like Clinton cos his scandal involved gettin busy with his secretary.

Heh, Clinton is the man.

As a non-American he's my favourite president.

But that doesn't change how much he lied. Which makes this funny.. Ahh ol' Bill.

Just goes to show that in polls at least, people understand the difference between a personal lie and one that gets tens of thousands of people killed, and tens to hundreds of thousands maimed and permanently disabled.

Clinton was honest as far as policy goes. But who he was bangin'...that's a different story (it took a Congressional investigation to get THAT out of 'im.)

Clinton didn't lie as much as Bush did on important matters. Like lying about WMD to invade a country and take its oil...

But Clinton did lie a lot too, and was far from a perfect president (how many iraqi did he kill with the weekly bombings and the embargo ?)

(it took a Congressional investigation to get THAT out of 'im.)

True of most men who have affairs. ;)

Clinton was honest as far as policy goes. But who he was bangin'...that's a different story (it took a Congressional investigation to get THAT out of 'im.)
Agreed.

Clinton spoke English, but Bush ... I don't know what sort of English he speaks.

Slick Willy Clinton, LOL.

Bush's mission was accomplished;

Depends on if you belive the conspiracy theorist a la M. Moore. If you do then yes.

we got Hussein

That was not the main objective.

and verified the existence of WMD's

BULL-GD-EFFING-SHITE! Not one shred of evidence.

(or the lack thereof).

Not the mission.

Ever gotten into a hole so deep you can't dig yourself out? That's where we're at today in Iraq.

You got that (almost) right!

I don't believe Bush lied, but I do believe he could have used better judgement than sending half our military to Iraq (I know I'm exaggerating).

You are unfortunately not far off the mark.

The more you got there, the more you have to get out. I'm glad we got Hussein, but we can and will not ever stamp out terrorism. However, that doesn't mean we should surrender to it; just use different tactics.

some agreement, but probabaly not the sort you expect...

At least when Clinton said "mission accomplished", it was.
Have you looked at the area lately, the only reason it isn't more violent than iraq is because nobody gives a shit about it. It's certainly more fucked economically except for illegal activities like human trafficking, gun running, and drug running.

Have you looked at the area lately, the only reason it isn't more violent than iraq is because nobody gives a shit about it. It's certainly more fucked economically except for illegal activities like human trafficking, gun running, and drug running.
It must kill you to see so many people acknowledging what the reality-based community has seen for years--that Bush is a fuckup among fuckups, and Clinton was beyond competent.

It must kill you to see so many people acknowledging what the reality-based community has seen for years--that Bush is a fuckup among fuckups, and Clinton was beyond competent.
And nowhere in your little diatribe do you refute what I noted. You can speculate as to my motives all you want, but unless you can disprove what I said, I'm still right. Clinton wasn't that competent, but he did ride an economic bubble to the top and had a relatively friendly media. Not to mention he was quite possibly one of the most charismatic politicians of the 20th century. What do you think today's media would do to Bush if it found out his 2004 campaign was mostly financed by the Saudi's? It would crucify him. Yet the same thing happened with Clinton's second election, just with the Chinese instead. Yet not a peep out of the MSM. I wonder why?

And nowhere in your little diatribe do you refute what I noted. You can speculate as to my motives all you want, but unless you can disprove what I said, I'm still right. Clinton wasn't that competent, but he did ride an economic bubble to the top and had a relatively friendly media. Not to mention he was quite possibly one of the most charismatic politicians of the 20th century. What do you think today's media would do to Bush if it found out his 2004 campaign was mostly financed by the Saudi's? It would crucify him. Yet the same thing happened with Clinton's second election, just with the Chinese instead. Yet not a peep out of the MSM. I wonder why?
Relatively friendly media? Whatever the fuck it is you're smoking, you need to put it down, right now, because next thing you know, you're going to thinking you're Superman and walking out of a 15th story window.

I see it like this. Clinton was getting BJs from an intern, and lied about it...so what? Not really any of mine nor anyone elses business to be honest. He did at least have the country moving in the right derection ecinomically speaking, and shrinking our overall debt.

Bush on the other hand lied in order to send how many of our soldiers into a war? And our economy has suffered greatly because of his decisions, especially our National Debt...holy crap. Has he done any good? Yes. Some of his social reforms have been good, but that doesnt make up for all the lies involved in the Iraq war.

Clinton was by far the better president of the two, and more trustworthy as best I can see it. And just for the record I'm not slamming Bush because I am Dem. I suppose I'm more Independant than anything.

Bush on the other hand lied in order to send how many of our soldiers into a war? And our economy has suffered greatly because of his decisions, especially our National Debt...holy crap. Has he done any good? Yes. Some of his social reforms have been good, but that doesnt make up for all the lies involved in the Iraq war.

I'd have to disagree; deficits have helped our economy much more than they have hurt it; one of the reasons why there have been no recessions since 2001 is due to the deficit spending and reduced taxes, which bolstered disposable income and have made it possible to keep spending up despite slow or flat growth in wages.

Although his policies have not helped the economy per se, they have prevented the macroeconomic shocks he has absolutely zero control over from pushing the economy in to recession. Nevertheless, deficit spending will start to hurt the economy once we reach full employment.

In my opinion, Bush has mitigated the bad rather than necessarily created anything good; Clinton was much more fortunate than Bush when it came to macroeconomic stability and therefore many of his decisions were beneficial rather than mitigative in nature, although some of the situations that existed during the 90's are being paid for today.

No one is more honest than Bush. I mean come on, when has ever lied?

No one is more honest than Bush. I mean come on, when has ever lied?

Don't answer people. He's just trolling as per usual...

Clinton wasn't that competent, but he did ride an economic bubble to the top.

To a degree, yes. However, Clinton made several important decisions in his first term that helped the economy; also, the gridlock in Congress during the second term also helped by reducing the deficit during the period of full employment which helped slow inflation. Regardless, Clinton had a solid knowledge of economic policy and he used it quite well when it was needed.

Nevertheless, Clinton also failed in one major area, energy policy. He did not take advantage of the cheap energy of the period to plan ahead for higher prices; fuel economy fell continuously during his term and demand for oil and gas rose much faster than it had during the 1980's or early 1990's.

No one is more honest than Bush. I mean come on, when has ever lied?

When he sent the link to Lemonparty and told me it was an e-greeting card.

Bush on the other hand lied in order to send how many of our soldiers into a war? And our economy has suffered greatly because of his decisions, especially our National Debt...holy crap. Has he done any good? Yes. Some of his social reforms have been good, but that doesnt make up for all the lies involved in the Iraq war.

?? Heh, you haven't been paying attention have you. Currently the economy is the highest it's been since the very peak of the dot-com Bubble. And as for the debt, the projections were based on the economy staying static in it's growth rate. Which any two-bit economist could tell you is a very stupid thing to do. Not to mention that it was based on cash accounting figures, which are worthless for determining debt of something as large as the US government. The actual US debt is probably at least an order of magnitude higher than the current figures, mainly because of SocSec, Medicare, and federal pension plans.

Well, lieing as a president can be good, as long as you can get away with it. Just look at Polk, he provoked war with Mexico by sending troops into the disputed area between the Rio Grande and the Nueces Rivers. The Mexicans bit and so did Congress because he told them it was on "American Soil" but left out the disputed part. He got away with it, Bush and Clinton did not. Clinton was a kick-ass president though...

I'd have to disagree; deficits have helped our economy much more than they have hurt it; one of the reasons why there have been no recessions since 2001 is due to the deficit spending and reduced taxes, which bolstered disposable income and have made it possible to keep spending up despite slow or flat growth in wages.

Although his policies have not helped the economy per se, they have prevented the macroeconomic shocks he has absolutely zero control over from pushing the economy in to recession. Nevertheless, deficit spending will start to hurt the economy once we reach full employment.

In my opinion, Bush has mitigated the bad rather than necessarily created anything good; Clinton was much more fortunate than Bush when it came to macroeconomic stability and therefore many of his decisions were beneficial rather than mitigative in nature, although some of the situations that existed during the 90's are being paid for today.


Gee, you'd think that in such a globalized economy that it would be odd for the US to sink into a recession while the rest of the world manages to reduce budget deficits.... which you would need to believe to support your theory.

Meanwhile, the country that inter-depends the most upon your economy - Canada - has managed to cut taxes AND maintain budget surpluses over GW's tenure.....

Funny how that worked out if it has all - according to you - been due to Macro events totally out of the control of the President isn't it?

Darn near impossible actually.....

But it IS true, as you note, that his policies have NOT helped stimulate the economy. Only put a bit of extra disposable income out there to keep spending going. Frankly, that should not be good enough.

And had interest rates not been at historic lows already when he came into power he would not have even managed that, because it has been the housing boom tied to affordable mortgages that has driven the economy far more than tax breaks which have been largely skewed towards helping those who are already wealthy.

And, in the meantime, this President has still refused to veto one single pork-laden spending bill that showed up on his desk while simultaneously boosting military spending by 40% - only a fraction of which included the IRaq debacle.


But hey, give him a pass if you like. That's what Republicans seem to do - no matter WHAT this knob does. It's all OK, as long as he didn't get blown I guess.


Because blowjobs will ruin the country!

And as for the debt, the projections were based on the economy staying static in it's growth rate.s.

We'd have to be at a NASDAQ closing level of over 22,000 right now to keep up with the projections from the late 90's. It made the assumption that everything would remain the same, there would be no recessions or stock market declines, and the economy would continue to grow at 4% ad infinitum.

It also assumed that unemployment would not rise above 4-4.5% and investment would continue at its late 90's growth. It was so unrealistic as to be harmful to US fiscal policy.

Gee, you'd think that in such a globalized economy that it would be odd for the US to sink into a recession while the rest of the world manages to reduce budget deficits.... which you would need to believe to support your theory.

Reducing budget deficits anywhere in the world can have a negative effect on the economy, as can reductions in investment. The 2001 recession is due to three main reasons; the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the overtightening of the Federal Reserve, and the dot com bubble.

Balanced budgets and surpluses can cause recessions.

Meanwhile, the country that inter-depends the most upon your economy - Canada - has managed to cut taxes AND maintain budget surpluses over GW's tenure.....

That's because Canada has a lot of oil that is being sold for huge amounts of money and is powering economic growth which produces tons of tax revenue. The Middle Eastern nations collect almost no taxes but run huge budget surpluses; it has nothing to do with fiscal policy but rather increases in the price of oil.

If the US was an oil exporter, we'd be running a trade surplus and would be raking in billions in taxes. The same would be true of Europe or Japan; the only nations running consisten budget surpluses are either small or have lots of oil.

But it IS true, as you note, that his policies have NOT helped stimulate the economy. Only put a bit of extra disposable income out there to keep spending going. Frankly, that should not be good enough.

Keeping spending going in the face of high energy prices and inflation is far better than a recession. There's nothing else he could do to stimulate the economy because there are so many negatives than need to be mitigated.

And had interest rates not been at historic lows already when he came into power he would not have even managed that, because it has been the housing boom tied to affordable mortgages that has driven the economy far more than tax breaks which have been largely skewed towards helping those who are already wealthy.

Interest rates didn't reach their lows until 2003; the housing boom's effects came after the tax cuts and are tied to them. The wealthy are helped by the tax cuts and the housing boom because they have the money and credit necessary to take part in it; the housing boom was just as slanted to the wealthy as the tax cuts, but the same was true of the 1990's.

And, in the meantime, this President has still refused to veto one single pork-laden spending bill that showed up on his desk while simultaneously boosting military spending by 40% - only a fraction of which included the IRaq debacle.

Can't argue with that. Wasting money is pointless and irresponsible.

I see it like this. Clinton was getting BJs from an intern, and lied about it...so what? Not really any of mine nor anyone elses business to be honest.

.

Is that why you think impeachment procedings were brought against Clinton? Because he lied about an affair with Monica Lewinski? Was the entire planet so titilated by the idea of the president having meaningless sex with a star struck intern that nobody noticed why he was impeached or where exactly telling lles under oath about his tryst fit into the impeachment procedings?


One rotund girl sucking one old guys penis can hide impeachment procedings from an entire nation the same as headlights can hide an oncoming car from a deer then.

:headbang:

It must kill you to see so many people acknowledging what the reality-based community has seen for years--that Bush is a fuckup among fuckups, and Clinton was beyond competent.
Why be a party hack? Bash both Clinton and Bush, they're both right wing pleutocrats.

?? Heh, you haven't been paying attention have you. Currently the economy is the highest it's been since the very peak of the dot-com Bubble.

The difference being that in every single recession recovery but the last one the recovery happened from the bottom up. That didn't happen this time. Wages for the middle and working class eroded. Costs, especially in healthcare and energy, spiraled upward. In that atmosphere, profits for the lucky (or, rather, well-connected,) few went up. Wealth has become more concentrated at the upper end.

And as for the debt, the projections were based on the economy staying static in it's growth rate. Which any two-bit economist could tell you is a very stupid thing to do.

And Bush's own debt reduction projections are based on even flimsier evidence, especially considering that War costs have NEVER been added in to the Bush administration projections for the deficit. Remember how much Bush and his fools told us the Iraq War would cost?


Not to mention that it was based on cash accounting figures, which are worthless for determining debt of something as large as the US government. The actual US debt is probably at least an order of magnitude higher than the current figures, mainly because of SocSec, Medicare, and federal pension plans.

And War costs and interest on the RECORD foreign borrowing (primarily from China,) the Bush administration has indulged in.

Why do you think the average person's perception of the economy is poor (based on polls,)? It's because, for the average person, this economy is shit and it's only getting worse. And yet, instead of listening to your fellow Americans, you continue to listen to the tired equivocations and excuses of the bumbling incompetents in power.

At least when Clinton said "mission accomplished", it was.
That's just because, rather than try and help the reason, everyone involved in that mess just engaged in a nice international circle jerk and let the region stay fucked up. Bush, at least, is trying to fix things in Iraq, rather than making some symbollic movements, getting bored and wandering away.
Not that either business was US business, and both men should fry for wasting US resources and diplomatic clout in places that don't benefit us.

The difference being that in every single recession recovery but the last one the recovery happened from the bottom up. That didn't happen this time. Wages for the middle and working class eroded. Costs, especially in healthcare and energy, spiraled upward. In that atmosphere, profits for the lucky (or, rather, well-connected,) few went up. Wealth has become more concentrated at the upper end.

Kind of. Each recession has seen less benefit to the lower class during the recovery since the 1970's; even more concerning, the expansions are also not benefitting the lower class. The late 1990's was one of the strongest economic expansions in decades, but income inequality grew at its fastest pace since records were first kept.

That probably has a lot to do with what drives economic growth; the increasing educational demands in the labor market and specialization make it harder for unskilled and semiskilled workers to find high-wage employment, but also produces labor shortages that drive up wages for the highly skilled and educated, most of whom are in the middle and upper classes. Also, the equity markets and real estate have a much bigger effect on growthh; again, these markets have a much bigger effect on the middle and upper classes and therefore economic growth doesn't distribute downward.

This in and of itself is not a bad thing; the main concern is that the income gap will become a wall to progress that the poor cannot summit regardless of willingness to do so. Unfortunately, that is the trend that is emerging.


Why do you think the average person's perception of the economy is poor (based on polls,)? It's because, for the average person, this economy is shit and it's only getting worse. And yet, instead of listening to your fellow Americans, you continue to listen to the tired equivocations and excuses of the bumbling incompetents in power.

But then again, so were the 1990's for many people. If you look at polls from the 90's, you see dramatic increases in the perception of the economy as divided between haves and have-nots and dramatic rises in public perception of income inequality. Most interesting, the biggest shift in opinion occured in 1999 when the stock markets had a record year; this shows a definite link be

Even more interesting, the opinion was much different in the 1992-1995 period even though unemployment was higher and wage growth slower; people saw the economy as more balanced, and this definitely has to do with the fact that the first part of the 90's recovery was driven by a more broad expansion than existed in the second half. Manufacturing growth was particularly solid, reversing some of its losses in the 1980's but that decelerated rapidly in 1995 and was falling from 1996 onward.

Manufacturing employment peaked in roughly 1995-1996, and I think the steep declines in the later part of the decade definitely had a lot to do with the rise in income inequality and perceptions of the economy. The same thing is happening now, but with the added problem of higher inflation.

That's just because, rather than try and help the reason, everyone involved in that mess just engaged in a nice international circle jerk and let the region stay fucked up. Bush, at least, is trying to fix things in Iraq, rather than making some symbollic movements, getting bored and wandering away.
Not that either business was US business, and both men should fry for wasting US resources and diplomatic clout in places that don't benefit us.
Who are you and what have you done with the real Fiddlebottoms? The real Fiddles is generally reactionary, but he's not generally an idiot, and anyone who would type the above without sarcasm dripping from every word is, well, an idiot.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Fiddlebottoms? The real Fiddles is generally reactionary, but he's not generally an idiot, and anyone who would type the above without sarcasm dripping from every word is, well, an idiot.
This is a flame. You've been reported.

Your posts are normally more than this. Why the reaction just because someone insults Clinton? I suppose you are in favour of increasing elite profiteering, the wealth gap, and big business control over our lives, like Clinton was?

This is a flame. You've been reported.

Your posts are normally more than this. Why the reaction just because someone insults Clinton? I suppose you are in favour of increasing elite profiteering, the wealth gap, and big business control over our lives, like Clinton was?

Um, why are you reporting this? IF Fiddlebottoms feels insulted, he can report it himself. He's a big boy and he and Nazz have a long history of going toe-to-toe.

By the way, the "flame" had nothing to do with Clinton and everything to do with the start of an unneccessary and incompetently managed war in Iraq. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Um, why are you reporting this? IF Fiddlebottoms feels insulted, he can report it himself. He's a big boy and he and Nazz have a long history of going toe-to-toe.

By the way, the "flame" had nothing to do with Clinton and everything to do with the start of an unneccessary and incompetently managed war in Iraq. Reading comprehension is your friend.
And more likely what will happen is that Fiddles will rip me in some hysterically funny way and we'll all walk away from it with a giggle.

Um, why are you reporting this? IF Fiddlebottoms feels insulted, he can report it himself. He's a big boy and he and Nazz have a long history of going toe-to-toe.
Calling anyone an idiot is a flame, no matter how many words you use. I'm also sick to death of "liberal" Americans like Nazz praising right-wing big business politicians like Clinton. They're not on your side.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Fiddlebottoms? The real Fiddles is generally reactionary, but he's not generally an idiot, and anyone who would type the above without sarcasm dripping from every word is, well, an idiot.
Are you denying that there is unrest in the Balkans now? When your justification for going to war is that you're going to make life better (well, better for those people who you didn't set on fire in the process of being humanitarians), then I want to see some damned big improvements, at least someone should open a Six Flags Over Kosovo.
Either way, there hasn't been a legitimate use of US force since WWII ended, and both Clinton and Bush were/are part of the Military-Industrial complex that continues to piss away American blood and money (not treasure, though, at least our Spanish Doubloons are still safe) in needless profiteering.

Though it is nice to know that you don't think I'm generally an idiot (but reactionary? As in antidisestablishmentarianism and pro-monarchy? That's not cool, man, way not cool.)

Clinton lied? I mean besides the whole "Scandal"...maybe I was too young to remember...

Are you denying that there is unrest in the Balkans now? When your justification for going to war is that you're going to make life better (well, better for those people who you didn't set on fire in the process of being humanitarians), then I want to see some damned big improvements, at least someone should open a Six Flags Over Kosovo.
Either way, there hasn't been a legitimate use of US force since WWII ended, and both Clinton and Bush were/are part of the Military-Industrial complex that continues to piss away American blood and money (not treasure, though, at least our Spanish Doubloons are still safe) in needless profiteering.

Though it is nice to know that you don't think I'm generally an idiot (but reactionary? As in antidisestablishmentarianism and pro-monarchy? That's not cool, man, way not cool.)
Not at all--the Balkans is still a mess, no question, although I think i's marginally better than it was prior to the NATO intervention.

No, it was the "Bush is trying to fix things in Iraq" that made me figure you'd been replaced by a pod.

This is a flame. You've been reported.
Bah, I suffered worse from my wet nurse. And my mother. And my father. And my girlfriend.
Come to think of it, all of my so-called "enemies" are kinder to me than those with whom I have closer relationships. That can't be healthy.
Your posts are normally more than this.
Why is everyone bringing precedents into this? That is most unfair for someone, such as myself, who is to lazy to develop an opinion about someone based on their word when I can just rely on the color of their skin (or the number of vowels in their name) to determine the content of their character.

Calling anyone an idiot is a flame, no matter how many words you use. I'm also sick to death of "liberal" Americans like Nazz praising right-wing big business politicians like Clinton. They're not on your side.

So, you're basically calling Nazz an idiot? I mean, that is what you're insinuating, no matter how many words you use. You're sick to death of those who ignore what, to you, is obvious. That's calling someone an idiot, and you don't even have a history with Nazz. That's it, you're going on report on my personal, double-secret enemies list.

Anyway, loosen up. No one likes a busybody, be they right- or left-wing.

No one is saying Clinton was ideal. The point that you're missing was that Clinton's experience in the Balkans (with REAL international support,) was a cakewalk compared to Iraq. And of course things aren't great there now. They had a freaking civil war that involved ethnic cleansing. Things haven't been pretty there for ages and ages, and tensions like that take at least a generation to ease.

Now yes, Clinton was pro-corporate, pro-big business, pro-big money to politicians, but his leanings were small potatoes compared to Bush and were MUCH more competently administered.

I'm left-wing, but I acknowledge that competence is a LOT more important that ideology. Clinton was a MUCH more able delegator, diplomat and organizer. He and his wife attempted to reform healthcare, but they were blocked by a rabidly partisan and right-wing/Conservative Congress, so Clinton's Presidency took on a much greater right-wing look than Clinton himself intended.

In other words, I'm saying you're right, on the surface, but misleading with regards to the entire picture.

Hope that's not a flame.

Not at all--the Balkans is still a mess, no question, although I think i's marginally better than it was prior to the NATO intervention.
Based on the expense (in lives and money) involved, I'd count a "marginal" improvement as a loss.
No, it was the "Bush is trying to fix things in Iraq" that made me figure you'd been replaced by a pod.
Well, he is trying to fix things. Just like I tried to keep my pet goldfish alive when I was 7.
Trying and succeeding, however, aren't the same thing, as I discovered when I overfed my fish one day and got my first taste of mass murder the next morning (yeah, it seems silly now, but at the time I felt like the Littlest Hitler with those four little guys just floating there).

No one is saying Clinton was ideal. The point that you're missing was that Clinton's experience in the Balkans (with REAL international support,) was a cakewalk compared to Iraq. And of course things aren't great there now. They had a freaking civil war that involved ethnic cleansing. Things haven't been pretty there for ages and ages, and tensions like that take at least a generation to ease.

Now yes, Clinton was pro-corporate, pro-big business, pro-big money to politicians, but his leanings were small potatoes compared to Bush and were MUCH more competently administered.

I'm left-wing, but I acknowledge that competence is a LOT more important that ideology. Clinton was a MUCH more able delegator, diplomat and organizer. He and his wife attempted to reform healthcare, but they were blocked by a rabidly partisan and right-wing/Conservative Congress, so Clinton's Presidency took on a much greater right-wing look than Clinton himself intended.

I'm certainly not the first to say it, but I'll gladly repeat it--Clinton was the best Republican president of the last hundred years.

Based on the expense (in lives and money) involved, I'd count a "marginal" improvement as a loss.

ANd yet the cost in lives and dollars (at least from an American perspective,) was tiny when compared to the Iraq...and we're not even out of Iraq yet.


Well, he is trying to fix things. Just like I tried to keep my pet goldfish alive when I was 7.

There's a reason why the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," has stuck around for so long. Having your heart in the right place (debateable in Bush's case,) is no excuse for gross incompetence.


Trying and succeeding, however, aren't the same thing, as I discovered when I overfed my fish one day and got my first taste of mass murder the next morning (yeah, it seems silly now, but at the time I felt like the Littlest Hitler with those four little guys just floating there).

But at least you KNOW your intentions were good. With the cluster(funk) that Iraq has become, both in the justification and the execution, I find it hard to believe that all that has gone wrong originated from lily-white motives.

ANd yet the cost in lives and dollars (at least from an American perspective,) was tiny when compared to the Iraq...and we're not even out of Iraq yet.
I'd rather get shot in the arm than in the head, but, to be frank, I'd much prefer to just not get shot at all. Just because something is "better" than something else, doesn't mean that either thing were good, or that their doers should be excused.
There's a reason why the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," has stuck around for so long. Having your heart in the right place (debateable in Bush's case,) is no excuse for gross incompetence.
Did I say it was? We're arguing about shades of unpleasant here, and at least Bush seems willing to try and set things aright after he fucked up. He's making things worse, yes, but at least there is an effort toward maturity (you break it, you buy it; while hardly the best plan of action, is certainly better than just breaking something and leaving the mess).
But at least you KNOW your intentions were good. With the cluster(funk) that Iraq has become, both in the justification and the execution, I find it hard to believe that all that has gone wrong originated from lily-white motives.
The Mid-East seems to have this effect on Western powers. All that sand and oil, and they get stupid. Suddenly, the wonderful plans and motives that made so much sense back in Europe or the US don't work out, but they keep banging their heads against the walls anyway.

Did I say it was? We're arguing about shades of unpleasant here, and at least Bush seems willing to try and set things aright after he fucked up. He's making things worse, yes, but at least there is an effort toward maturity (you break it, you buy it; while hardly the best plan of action, is certainly better than just breaking something and leaving the mess).

In theory, yes. However, think of it this way: You try to do something good, yet do more bad than good. Do you count your blessings and leave, or do you keep trying and make things even worse? The motive for the latter is better, but realistically, the former is better overall.

In theory, yes. However, think of it this way: You try to do something good, yet do more bad than good. Do you count your blessings and leave, or do you keep trying and make things even worse? The motive for the latter is better, but realistically, the former is better overall.
If you admit that you fucked up so that people can learn from your failures, then its a better thing. If you engage in some back-slapping with your buddies and try to pass the thing off as a triumph (thus, encouraging other people to fuck up the same way you did later on), then it isn't much better.

If you admit that you fucked up so that people can learn from your failures, then its a better thing. If you engage in some back-slapping with your buddies and try to pass the thing off as a triumph (thus, encouraging other people to fuck up the same way you did later on), then it isn't much better.

Unfortunately, this back-slapping bravado is exactly what Bush is doing.

Too many people make an unnecessary distinction between practicing a deception and telling a lie.

And War costs and interest on the RECORD foreign borrowing (primarily from China,) the Bush administration has indulged in.
Which are chump change compared to the things I mentioned. Over 3 trillion a year in debt for the ones I mentioned alone. The other two don't come anywhere near that amount per year.

There's a reason why the phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions," has stuck around for so long. Having your heart in the right place (debateable in Bush's case,) is no excuse for gross incompetence.

All that's saying is that the idea of the ends justifying the means is a bad one, and the democrats are one hell of a lot more guilty of that than the republicans.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/12/bush.clinton.poll/index.html



Okay, I actually laughed at this. I mean, I thought Clinton was a far better President than Bush, but more honest?!?

No way. Clinton was just better at getting away with lies. :p
Well well well...
Congrats on 10,000 anyways.
Do anything special?

Atleast Clinton know what he was talking about most of the time.
You can hardly say thet about Bush.
Not just that - the people are having a hard time understanding what Bush doesn't know!
:(
I don't think he's being misunderestimated.
Nor does it seem to much of an effective strategery.

All that's saying is that the idea of the ends justifying the means is a bad one, and the democrats are one hell of a lot more guilty of that than the republicans.
You have yet to substantiate that vapid accusation with any significant facts, no matter HOW MANY TIMES you are called on it. Perhaps you should seek some counseling.
*shakes head*

So, you're basically calling Nazz an idiot? I mean, that is what you're insinuating, no matter how many words you use. You're sick to death of those who ignore what, to you, is obvious. That's calling someone an idiot, and you don't even have a history with Nazz. That's it, you're going on report on my personal, double-secret enemies list.
I didn't use the word idiot, and the Nazz did.

Now yes, Clinton was pro-corporate, pro-big business, pro-big money to politicians, but his leanings were small potatoes compared to Bush
No, he was almost as bad as Bush. He was more competent, admittedly.

I'm certainly not the first to say it, but I'll gladly repeat it--Clinton was the best Republican president of the last hundred years.
What about Ted Roosevelt?

Clinton was a Democrat, but you know that. If you're using Republican as a term of abuse, why do you ever bother to defend Clinton?

All that's saying is that the idea of the ends justifying the means is a bad one, and the democrats are one hell of a lot more guilty of that than the republicans.
The ends usually do justify the means. WWII was a very brutal war on both sides, but the ends justified the horrific means.

emmm id like to consider intervention in kosovo as one of the good things NATO did. i was only liek 7 when it happened, but hey, that place was a mess and needed to be sorted out

this post reeks of hypocracy.... It's ok for the US to use military might against Serbs, but not when over 180,000 Kurds are genocided. I take it that pledge we made following WWII to stop genocide only applies when

a. A Democrat is in office
B. Those being genocided look like you?

hmmmmm

I suspected that this thread would lean toward politicl debate.

Please try to refrain from being serious in my silly thread. Thank you. :)

P.S.: And thanks to the moderators for reviving my deleted nation. Your soft taco is enroute. :)

Bush has never lied. In order to lie, one would have to know what's going on and present information to the contrary. It would be more accurate to say that Bush has never had a clue about what's going on and just says what he thinks people want to hear.

Bush has never lied. In order to lie, one would have to know what's going on and present information to the contrary. It would be more accurate to say that Bush has never had a clue about what's going on and just says what he thinks people want to hear.

So you're sayig that he's not a lying bastard, he's a empty-headed babbler?

That would explain his performance in the 2004 debates. :p How the hell did he win that election?!?

So you're sayig that he's not a lying bastard, he's a empty-headed babbler?

That would explain his performance in the 2004 debates. :p How the hell did he win that election?!?

It would be the principle of belief: people will believe anything because they either want it to be true or they are afraid that it is true.

If politican$="y" then honest$=nul

...politicians don't need to tell the truth, it's not part of the job description!