Bill Clinton Options

[kimmytree]

What are your views on the former President?

What about his effect on the economy?

And what about the attacks on our country? Is he to blame?

Discuss.

(Wikipedia has some good info on him).

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

He did good for the economy. After all, he did achieve a budget surplus in 2002.

[kimmytree]

He did good for the economy. After all, he did achieve a budget surplus in 2002.

Yeah, and the unemployment rate was lower during his presidency than it had been since the 60's.

What are your views when it comes to the attacks on 9/11? Republicans have been bashing him, blaming him for not preventing them from happening... when in reality, Bush had 9 months to do something.

I feel like such a n00b in the debate forum. This is my first topic.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

Would they have known anything when Clinton was still president?

I think Bush is to blame.

[kimmytree]

I agree. It happened 9 months into his presidency, and he had all kinds of warnings.

But then there's people who want to blame Clinton, saying that we had Osama and let him go.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Um, I disapprove of the Defense of Marriage Act profusely. The implications of the name alone are bad- in what way does marriage need to be defended? He was a very confused Democrat.

[kimmytree]

Um, I disapprove of the Defense of Marriage Act profusely. The implications of the name alone are bad- in what way does marriage need to be defended? He was a very confused Democrat.

How was that being a very confused Democrat? He was against gay marriage. 10 years ago gays werent quite as accepted as they are now.

In what way does marriage need to be defended? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, silly. Gays deserve their rights, but marriage?

[*kryogenix*]

Bin Laden was pretty much offered to Clinton and he dropped the ball. Clinton helped out the North Korean nuclear program. Clinton lied under oath.

Actually, I don't know if Clinton had much to do with the economy. It was the dot com bubble inflating which brought the economy up. In fact, economists think that Clinton might have been responsible for the recession at the end and after his term. And if I recall correctly, it wasn't really a surplus, because the money was never really there.

Just offering some counter arguements. I voted for Clinton back in our elementary school mock elections. I don't like him so much anymore though.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

How was that being a very confused Democrat? He was against gay marriage. 10 years ago gays werent quite as accepted as they are now.

In what way does marriage need to be defended? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, silly. Gays deserve their rights, but marriage?

I think you're making a fairly illogical generalization, but really I didn't think it was going to have to actually spell out my reasoning as to how he was confused as a Democrat.

As for your second comment, you have got to be kidding me. Good lord. Marriage DOES NOT have to be defended, that's my point. Marriages are actually personal so who is allowed to marry should be entirely irrelevant. Just because something had always certain way does in no way make it right. Tradition alone is not a valid way to guage much of anything. Marriage doesn't have to be defended not because of how marriage "should be" is implied, but because it shouldn't be ignorantly restricted. You cannot say that homosexuals deserve their rights but that they don't deserve marriage. It's completely contradictory. Plus, to suggest that heterosexual couples actually deserve marriage implies thet they've done something to deserve it, which is not the case. Have you looked at the divorce rate lately? Not so good, so to suggest that a man and a woman should actually get the benefits that others don't just for that is absurd.

Anyway, back to how Clinton applies to this. Same-sex couples, regardless of where they live or what state they were married in, have been federally refused social security benefits after death of a partner, because he passed the Act. (It shouldn't be in effect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply to all such matters, not just which ones the homophobic idiots of the world happen to approve of.)
Besides how acceptance has changed over the past decade (which I still consider to be pretty stupid reasoning), liberals are still much more associated with a stronger federal government, which he did the opposite of with that. (Of course, Bush's support of a federal gay marriage ban is also reversed and generally worse, but we're all perfectly well aware of how unpopular he is already.) That's how he's confused: he gave more power to the states and took a needlyessly conservative and homorphobic stance on that issue that was generally counterproductive to the equality that liberals favor.

Also, I have yet to hear a single valid reason as to why homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, so I do hope you're prepared to defend your opinion after that last comment.

[kimmytree]

I think you're making a fairly illogical generalization, but really I didn't think it was going to have to actually spell out my reasoning as to how he was confused as a Democrat.

As for your second comment, you have got to be kidding me. Good lord. Marriage DOES NOT have to be defended, that's my point. Marriages are actually personal so who is allowed to marry should be entirely irrelevant. Just because something had always certain way does in no way make it right. Tradition alone is not a valid way to guage much of anything. Marriage doesn't have to be defended not because of how marriage "should be" is implied, but because it shouldn't be ignorantly restricted. You cannot say that homosexuals deserve their rights but that they don't deserve marriage. It's completely contradictory. Plus, to suggest that heterosexual couples actually deserve marriage implies thet they've done something to deserve it, which is not the case. Have you looked at the divorce rate lately? Not so good, so to suggest that a man and a woman should actually get the benefits that others don't just for that is absurd.

Anyway, back to how Clinton applies to this. Same-sex couples, regardless of where they live or what state they were married in, have been federally refused social security benefits after death of a partner, because he passed the Act. (It shouldn't be in effect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply to all such matters, not just which ones the homophobic idiots of the world happen to approve of.)
Besides how acceptance has changed over the past decade (which I still consider to be pretty stupid reasoning), liberals are still much more associated with a stronger federal government, which he did the opposite of with that. (Of course, Bush's support of a federal gay marriage ban is also reversed and generally worse, but we're all perfectly well aware of how unpopular he is already.) That's how he's confused: he gave more power to the states and took a needlyessly conservative and homorphobic stance on that issue that was generally counterproductive to the equality that liberals favor.

Also, I have yet to hear a single valid reason as to why homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, so I do hope you're prepared to defend your opinion after that last comment.

You're right, I cannot defend myself on that one. When you first mentioned it, I had to look it up. Gays deserve equal rights. Its not like they "choose" to be gay, like many religous conservatives think.

I go to a Christian private school, so I'm confused enough as it is.

But what do you mean by confused? I thought giving more power to the states is something most libs are for. I think states should have more power.

[*mipadi*]

Bin Laden was pretty much offered to Clinton and he dropped the ball. Clinton helped out the North Korean nuclear program. Clinton lied under oath.

Several of these points are inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. Sure, Clinton lied about a personal issue he had no business being asked about. For comparison's sake, the Bush administration lied to the United Nations regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. I place that on a bit of a higher scale than lying about the Lewinsky scandal.

I don't know a whole lot about Bin Laden and Clinton, but what I've read about recently demonstrates how the Bush administration is getting clobbered so much on its mishandling of the war on Iraq that it's willing to do anything to point the finger somewhere else, which indicates to me an admission that its foreign policy is larged unplanned and, simply put, sucks.

[think!IMAGINARIL...]

And if I recall correctly, it wasn't really a surplus, because the money was never really there.

Well, they used it to pay off some of the national debt. It still counts as a surplus.

[kimmytree]

Several of these points are inaccurate or greatly exaggerated. Sure, Clinton lied about a personal issue he had no business being asked about. For comparison's sake, the Bush administration lied to the United Nations regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. I place that on a bit of a higher scale than lying about the Lewinsky scandal.

I don't know a whole lot about Bin Laden and Clinton, but what I've read about recently demonstrates how the Bush administration is getting clobbered so much on its mishandling of the war on Iraq that it's willing to do anything to point the finger somewhere else, which indicates to me an admission that its foreign policy is larged unplanned and, simply put, sucks.

Ahhhhh THANK YOU. Very well said.
Who wouldnt try to cover up the fact that they cheated on their spouse? I know I would. He still shouldnt have lied about it though, but its not like it hurt anyone but himself.

I've heard so many different things about the whole Clinton had Osama thing. Republicans try to say that he let him go; but in reality, I dont think we actually had him. A Saudi civilian CLAIMED that he had Bin Laden / knew of his where abouts, and had numerous outrageous demands. Its not like the actual Saudi government had him... that'd be a totally different story.

Well, they used it to pay off some of the national debt. It still counts as a surplus.

Yep.

The Clinton presidency left America with record economic growth and prosperity:

- Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.
- Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.
- Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).
- Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.
- Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.
- The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.
- The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.
- The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.
- President Clinton reached across the aisle and worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September of 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people.

[*kryogenix*]

Who's talking about Bush? I thought the topic of discussion was Clinton. SEE, YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS ALWAYS SEEM TO MENTION BUSH EVERY CHANCE YOU GET [/pundit]

The finger was pointed at Clinton years ago, it's just being put into the news again because of the Chris Wallace interview.

Oh yeah, Clinton gave away Nuclear blueprints to Iran in Operation Merlin.

You don't have to give me the economic stats. I know that the economy was doing well under Clinton. But correlation does not imply causation. Also, as I mentioned, Clinton was probably the cause for the recession we had.

[kimmytree]

Who's talking about Bush? I thought the topic of discussion was Clinton. SEE, YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS ALWAYS SEEM TO MENTION BUSH EVERY CHANCE YOU GET [/pundit]

The finger was pointed at Clinton years ago, it's just being put into the news again because of the Chris Wallace interview.

Oh yeah, Clinton gave away Nuclear blueprints to Iran in Operation Merlin.

You don't have to give me the economic stats. I know that the economy was doing well under Clinton. But correlation does not imply causation. Also, as I mentioned, Clinton was probably the cause for the recession we had.

I havent said crap about Bush. Oh, and for starters, learn how to spell. Its LIBERALS.

THE US (Regan and Bush senior) and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

How many attacks did we have under Clinton? There was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, but that was just a month into his term preceding Bush. Bush is more to blame for that one. But other than that, in the 8 years he was in office, there were no major attacks on the US, and certainly no attacks on the mainland. He kept us SAFE.

And whats with you trying to use big fancy words? To try to make your nearly ridiculous remarks sound intelligent? What do you mean by "recession"?

[*mipadi*]

Oh yeah, Clinton gave away Nuclear blueprints to Iran in Operation Merlin.

So what's your point? Reagan illegally sold weapons to Iran, and George H.W. Bush helped give weapons to Osama bin Laden in the first place. Furthermore, it was Bush's lack of initiative in destroying Iraq the first time around that led to problems now.

The reason I'm bringing this up is to point out that, sure, you can blame Clinton; but if you're going to point fingers at Clinton, it's only fair to take a good, hard look at his predecessors, which is where a lot of these problems began, or at least didn't get resolved.

And ultimately, my point is that the attempt to discredit Clinton is a good example of "playing politics". Bush's advisors know that the current administration messed up a lot of the handling of post-9/11 affairs, and with an election coming, they're doing everything they can to raise the Republicans' poll numbers before they lose a fair number of seats--and possibly the presidential election in another two years.

You don't have to give me the economic stats. I know that the economy was doing well under Clinton. But correlation does not imply causation. Also, as I mentioned, Clinton was probably the cause for the recession we had.

It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. I can buy the argument that the president has little to do with the shape of the economy, so I can believe the claim that Clinton didn't have much to do with the booming economy of the 90s. But that's a two-way street: If Clinton didn't have much to do with the booming economy, it's contradictory to blame him for the recession.

At any rate, you haven't posted any evidence to blame the recession on Clinton.

[kimmytree]

I cant wait to see how she'll respond to that one.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

You're right, I cannot defend myself on that one. When you first mentioned it, I had to look it up. Gays deserve equal rights. Its not like they "choose" to be gay, like many religous conservatives think.

I go to a Christian private school, so I'm confused enough as it is.

But what do you mean by confused? I thought giving more power to the states is something most libs are for. I think states should have more power.

There there *pats head*

Actually, no. I had thought so too, but it really isn't when you think about it. The main goal of liberalism is equality, and that's easiest achieved through federal regulations.

[OhMyAnniee]

Everyone has their problems. Being famous comes with the price of your problems being aired on national television.

Yeah, I thought about this awhile ago.
Look at Clinton and Gore, Clinton was in Africa and Gore was on the VMA's talking about Global Warming.

The last time Bush was on T.V. was for visiting Iraq overseas, I think.

[*kryogenix*]

I havent said crap about Bush. Oh, and for starters, learn how to spell. Its LIBERALS.

First of all, I'm not talking to you. I was talking to mipadi. Second of all, it should have been clear I was pretending to be obnoxious. But since you don't seem to be able to realize that I am pretending ([/pundit] HAS to mean something), I'll be obnoxious.

THE US (Regan and Bush senior) and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.

Argumentum tu quoque. Saying "you too" doesn't make it right.

How many attacks did we have under Clinton? There was the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, but that was just a month into his term preceding Bush. Bush is more to blame for that one. But other than that, in the 8 years he was in office, there were no major attacks on the US, and certainly no attacks on the mainland. He kept us SAFE.

Again, we're talking about Clinton, not Bush. How many attacks? The attacks on Americans were overseas (Cole, Kenya, etc). The planning for 9/11 was during Clinton's term.

However, that's irrelevant. I don't blame any president for terrorists hating us. The terrorists will want to kill us no matter who is in charge. As long as we're not going to convert to Islam, they will want us dead.

And whats with you trying to use big fancy words? To try to make your nearly ridiculous remarks sound intelligent? What do you mean by "recession"?

Ad hominem. Recession is an economic term, if you were listening to the news for the last five or six years, would probably would have heard it.

So what's your point? Reagan illegally sold weapons to Iran, and George H.W. Bush helped give weapons to Osama bin Laden in the first place. Furthermore, it was Bush's lack of initiative in destroying Iraq the first time around that led to problems now.

We had a different enemy under Reagan and H.W. Bush. The USSR was a more imminent threat. However, Clinton gave away nuclear plans in the year 2000. I don't think we were fighting another greater enemy then.

The reason I'm bringing this up is to point out that, sure, you can blame Clinton; but if you're going to point fingers at Clinton, it's only fair to take a good, hard look at his predecessors, which is where a lot of these problems began, or at least didn't get resolved.

I get it. So when people blame Bush, it's only fair to take a good hard look at Clinton then, which might explain why the current administration is talking about Clinton.

And ultimately, my point is that the attempt to discredit Clinton is a good example of "playing politics". Bush's advisors know that the current administration messed up a lot of the handling of post-9/11 affairs, and with an election coming, they're doing everything they can to raise the Republicans' poll numbers before they lose a fair number of seats--and possibly the presidential election in another two years.

I agree, but we're talking about Clinton here, so let's stay on topic.

At any rate, you haven't posted any evidence to blame the recession on Clinton.

Look at when the economy started to go down. It was before Bush's economic policies went into effect.

[*kryogenix*]

I cant wait to see how she'll respond to that one.

Just cause I'm a blond doesn't mean I stupid. I got bigger bewbs than you too.

[kimmytree]

Just cause I'm a blond doesn't mean I stupid. I got bigger bewbs than you too.

I was being sarcastic.

Uhmm? Probably so, im built really small all over.

[Synthetic.Love]

Clinton was very good. The media he got with Hilary is kinda crappy, 'cause it's his personal life. Anyway. I think he did very good, and he's wayy more mature than Bush, who I can't stand. He did way more for us, and he admitted if he didn't do something the right way. He admitted that he failed to stop the war. But at least he TRIED, unlike stupid Bush.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

I was being sarcastic.

Uhmm? Probably so, im built really small all over.

James is a boy, dear. Despite the signature. I don't think he's actually blond, let alone a blond with big boobs.

[kimmytree]

First of all, I'm not talking to you. I was talking to mipadi. Second of all, it should have been clear I was pretending to be obnoxious. But since you don't seem to be able to realize that I am pretending ([/pundit] HAS to mean something), I'll be obnoxious.

Regardless of who it was, it wasnt like it was off topic. Excuse me for not being familiar with the typical liberal bashing by conservatives.

Again, we're talking about Clinton, not Bush. How many attacks? The attacks on Americans were overseas (Cole, Kenya, etc). The planning for 9/11 was during Clinton's term.

However, that's irrelevant. I don't blame any president for terrorists hating us. The terrorists will want to kill us no matter who is in charge. As long as we're not going to convert to Islam, they will want us dead.

Yes, but they were very minor compared to the attacks on 9-11, the only terrorist attack on our mainland. Plus, Bush had been in office for 9 months. The CIA warned him weeks before the attacks that al-Quaida terrorists might hijack US planes. The White House has already admitted that one. The FBI warned that a large number of Arab men were attending flight schools. He was warned that planes might be crashed into US landmarks. The list goes on and on.

Thats true, but invading Iraq and us being over in the middle east has opened a can of worms.

We had a different enemy under Reagan and H.W. Bush. The USSR was a more imminent threat. However, Clinton gave away nuclear plans in the year 2000. I don't think we were fighting another greater enemy then.

Are you kidding me? Terrorism was still a threat back then. What nuclear plans?

I get it. So when people blame Bush, it's only fair to take a good hard look at Clinton then, which might explain why the current administration is talking about Clinton.

No, they're (republicans in office) are just trying to point fingers.

James is a boy, dear. Despite the signature. I don't think he's actually blond, let alone a blond with big boobs.

Awww. I was getting the impression that he was a girl.

[*kryogenix*]

I don't think I can take this debate seriously anymore. Back to trolling then.

I hope there's no hard feelings between us, I was just kidding around. It's easy to get mixed up though, I don't seem to know anyone here anymore, and vice versa.

[kimmytree]

Yeah... true.
I'm not exactly good at debating.

LOL sorry for the confusion. The Hello Kitty icon made me automatically think that.

[*kryogenix*]

It's no problem, the avatar sig combo was for another joke, but I've been too lazy to change it. It's funny when people think I'm a girl.

[*mipadi*]

We had a different enemy under Reagan and H.W. Bush. The USSR was a more imminent threat. However, Clinton gave away nuclear plans in the year 2000. I don't think we were fighting another greater enemy then.

Your argument amounts to "the ends justify the means," which doesn't hold a lot of sway. The actions of Reagan and Bush resulted in a lot of the problems we have now, which further weaken your argument.

I get it. So when people blame Bush, it's only fair to take a good hard look at Clinton then, which might explain why the current administration is talking about Clinton.

But I think you've missed my point. Following your logic, a critique of Clinton can only logically be followed by a critique of his predecessors—especially since many of their actions resulted in the problems we have now. When it comes to our problems with terrorism, the buck clearly doesn't stop with Clinton.

Furthermore, I'm not sure this is "taking a good hard look at Clinton". I think this is more about diverting attention from the Bush administration's failed foreign policy in any way possible.

I agree, but we're talking about Clinton here, so let's stay on topic.

An all-too-easy way to dodge the question. Why worry about Clinton? His administration isn't in office anymore. Why not discuss the one that is?

Look at when the economy started to go down. It was before Bush's economic policies went into effect.

The logic doesn't follow. You blame Clinton for the recession, yet you give no credit to him for the booming economy—a one-sided and clearly biased argument.

[kimmytree]

Yeah, I agree. I think Clinton is the least to blame for 9/11 and terrorism. Clinton had to make up for all the crap left behind from Bush and Regan as far as the economy goes. For each year that Clinton was in office, the unemployment rate and debt lowered steadily. What a waste that was, now that our current president has put us in even more debt over somewhere we shouldnt be to begin with.

*sigh*

[smoke]

^ My steady promise to stay out of this ignorant, close minded, one sided (no offence to anyone) debate form must come to an end for one moment. I honestly hope you'll admit to not knowing what you are talking about as opposed to acting like you do and continue this ranting. And this isn't a personal attack. You know me, I'm a nice guy. I really don't understand the general idea that Clinton was a better president than our current. He was no better. It's pretty bad when you lie to the people in your own country and to the people who put you in office. I'm not here to discuss Bush, but last I checked he didn't "lie" to the UN about WMD. Iraq did indeed have WMD but when the time came to check it out, Iraq already cleared them out. You guys watch a little too much CNN, huh?

Back to Clinton. I will honestly say I really like the man named Clinton. The president? Not so much. Sure, he's a nice guy, but he certainly wasn't a "good" president. And anyone who even tries to say he is will be ignored here after by myself because I really do not understand how anyone can come up with such a conclusion. Even with only 5 minutes of Google research under their belt, anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Ok, I won't ignore you... just seriously doubt your intellect, haha.

Has America's standard really stooped so low? Or is this all a left wing attempt to glorify their previous president to make themselves look good before the next election? Let us hope for the sake of the future of this country it is indeed the latter. I have nothing against the democrats, please do not think I am some right winged extremist. I'm a moderate and often side with the democratic party but the extremist attitude I've been seeing in that party is really starting to get on my last nerve. You piss green and it's some how Bush's fault. And whoever said that we were "SAFE" under the Clinton Administration... well, I don't even think I have to say a word. At least I hope not. It kind of hurts that argument when you factor in that 95% of the events that lead up to 9/11 happened during the Clinton presidency and I don't ever remember him doing a damn thing about it. They even attacked and killed our soldiers on the U.S.S. Cole, an act of war, and not a finger was even raised.

Anyways, ignore this post as I will not reply to any after this because I simply cannot take the ignorance and close mindedness that always seems to hit the fan and choke me with its poisonous fumes around here. I just wanted to simply say WAKE UP. I don't CARE what the hell your party is but for the love of God/your mother/grandmother/daughter/aunt/anything-that-you-hold-dear PLEASE open your eyes! We're Americans. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not Moderates. Americans. I'm tired of all the finger pointing. It's time to put the blame where it really belongs. On ourselves. We're not doing ANYTHING to help. Just "He did this. He did that." How is that pushing this country forward? All it's doing is making us look like dumb asses to the rest of the world. Stop doing it NOW. We need to start looking towards the future.

And whoever read all that... damn, I love you. Anyways, peace! If you want to talk about this, PM me.

[*mipadi*]

^ My steady promise to stay out of this ignorant, close minded, one sided (no offence to anyone) debate form must come to an end for one moment. I honestly hope you'll admit to not knowing what you are talking about as opposed to acting like you do and continue this ranting. And this isn't a personal attack. You know me, I'm a nice guy.

Who are you to say that anyone who responded in this thread is ignorant and close-minded? I contest this claim as it applies to myself. With the possible exception of kryogenix, I don't think anyone else who responded is a registered voter, and I'm pretty sure I'm the only old enough to have actually voted in an election (and I have). So you have a lot of nerve accusing everyone else of not knowing what they are talking about—a situation I am going to remedy here and now.

I really don't understand the general idea that Clinton was a better president than our current. He was no better. It's pretty bad when you lie to the people in your own country and to the people who put you in office.

Clinton was much, much more than the Lewinsky scandal. That didn't hurt anyone but himself and his wife—and it was between him and his wife. I don't see how you can nullify the positive things he did as president with a single act of infidelity. What happens in the bedroom has little to do with politics, in my mind.

I'm not here to discuss Bush, but last I checked he didn't "lie" to the UN about WMD. Iraq did indeed have WMD but when the time came to check it out, Iraq already cleared them out. You guys watch a little too much CNN, huh?

Numerous intelligence reports have suggested that Iraq possessed no weapons of mass destruction.[1][2]

Back to Clinton. I will honestly say I really like the man named Clinton. The president? Not so much. Sure, he's a nice guy, but he certainly wasn't a "good" president. And anyone who even tries to say he is will be ignored here after by myself because I really do not understand how anyone can come up with such a conclusion. Even with only 5 minutes of Google research under their belt, anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Ok, I won't ignore you... just seriously doubt your intellect, haha.

And yet you accuse others of being ignorant and close-minded… How hypocritical.

And why, pray tell, was Clinton a bad president—aside from the Lewinsky matter? You've made the claim—in Debate, it's traditional to back it up with real facts.

Has America's standard really stooped so low? Or is this all a left wing attempt to glorify their previous president to make themselves look good before the next election? Let us hope for the sake of the future of this country it is indeed the latter. I have nothing against the democrats, please do not think I am some right winged extremist. I'm a moderate and often side with the democratic party but the extremist attitude I've been seeing in that party is really starting to get on my last nerve.

And what of the extremist attitude of the Republican Party? I don't think the "glorification" of Clinton was an attempt to help in the election. The Democrats didn't even bring up Clinton—it was the Republicans who started slinging mud at him. How do you justify calling the Democrats "extremist"?

And whoever said that we were "SAFE" under the Clinton Administration... well, I don't even think I have to say a word. At least I hope not. It kind of hurts that argument when you factor in that 95% of the events that lead up to 9/11 happened during the Clinton presidency and I don't ever remember him doing a damn thing about it.

Let me guess—you pulled that 95% figure out of your ass. If you're going to make such claims, back it up with evidence. The only argument that's hurting is yours, and that's because you haven't backed it up with any facts whatsoever.

They even attacked and killed our soldiers on the U.S.S. Cole, an act of war, and not a finger was even raised.

And what evidence do you have that Clinton wasn/t pursuing bin Laden? What, does the president have to level two countries to make sure everyone knows he's routing out terrorists? Even if one of those countries had no link to al-Quaida whatsoever? And what of the American lives lost under Bush? How many casualties have we had in Iraq, fighting an "enemy" that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks whatsoever? Please, gimme a break.

Anyways, ignore this post as I will not reply to any after this because I simply cannot take the ignorance and close mindedness that always seems to hit the fan and choke me with its poisonous fumes around here. I just wanted to simply say WAKE UP. I don't CARE what the hell your party is but for the love of God/your mother/grandmother/daughter/aunt/anything-that-you-hold-dear PLEASE open your eyes! We're Americans. Not Democrats. Not Republicans. Not Moderates. Americans. I'm tired of all the finger pointing.

Bravo. You just made the perfect soundbite. Now, how about saying something other than the same rhetoric every politician says?

It's time to put the blame where it really belongs. On ourselves. We're not doing ANYTHING to help. Just "He did this. He did that." How is that pushing this country forward? All it's doing is making us look like dumb asses to the rest of the world. Stop doing it NOW. We need to start looking towards the future.

So what are you saying? Criticizing misguided foreign policy is un-American? A person has to stand behind the president 100%, or he's dividing the country? No. If the administration is making errors—especially ones that result in the loss of American lives—and then using political rhetoric to divert attention from misguided foreign policy, I say it's un-American to not stand up and bring attention to it. When the president is ordering illegal wiretaps, holding Americans in naval brigs without trial, and illegally detaining hundreds of foreign nationals without trial, I say he's the one that's un-American—for using a misguided war to erode our rights.

[*I Shot JFK*]

All praise michael.

huzzah!

[kimmytree]

^ My steady promise to stay out of this ignorant, close minded, one sided (no offence to anyone) debate form must come to an end for one moment. I honestly hope you'll admit to not knowing what you are talking about as opposed to acting like you do and continue this ranting. And this isn't a personal attack. You know me, I'm a nice guy. _smile.gif I really don't understand the general idea that Clinton was a better president than our current. He was no better. It's pretty bad when you lie to the people in your own country and to the people who put you in office. I'm not here to discuss Bush, but last I checked he didn't "lie" to the UN about WMD. Iraq did indeed have WMD but when the time came to check it out, Iraq already cleared them out. You guys watch a little too much CNN, huh?

How has this debate been one sided? Its been fairly equal, in my opinion. I'm not claiming to know everything. I'm just 17. But, I feel as if personally, im well informed of whats going on around me. So are you saying you know more about the subject than anyone else here? If so, why not try intelligently defending yourself.

I'm not trying to say that Clinton was an amazing President. He wasnt. He did wonders with the economy, and kept us safe; but made the mistake of lying to the American public about an affair. Thats what killed him. But, his lie didnt hurt anyone but himself, his wife, and his family. Think about it, who would admit to cheating on their spouse if occused? The only reason he admitted it was because he knew he couldnt get out of it.

How the hell were there weapons of mass destruction? I remember 3 years or so ago sitting in front of my tv when the UN was investigating, and thinking to myself that there werent really weapons. Bush LIED to us and the rest of the world that Iraq had WMD. At first, we were going along with the UN, like we usually do. But when the UN was finishing up investigations, we broke international law and went to war. Thats why the world hates us. Bush didnt want the UN to finish inspecting and show that there really werent weapons. Yeah, Clinton lied about his affair, but Bush's lie has so far killed 3,000 American soilders, injured tens of thousands, and taken the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Hah, thats the typical ignorant response I expect from Republicans. I cant remember the last time I watched CNN. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with CNN. You need to stop basing your opinions on what Mommy and Daddy tell you, and stop watching Fox news or something.

Back to Clinton. I will honestly say I really like the man named Clinton. The president? Not so much. Sure, he's a nice guy, but he certainly wasn't a "good" president. And anyone who even tries to say he is will be ignored here after by myself because I really do not understand how anyone can come up with such a conclusion. Even with only 5 minutes of Google research under their belt, anyone with half a brain could figure that out. Ok, I won't ignore you... just seriously doubt your intellect, haha.

Are you kidding me? Oh, is that because you wont be able to defend yourself on why that is so? Why is Bush so much better than Clinton? Oh, please do share. I think its more of the other way around.

Has America's standard really stooped so low? Or is this all a left wing attempt to glorify their previous president to make themselves look good before the next election? Let us hope for the sake of the future of this country it is indeed the latter. I have nothing against the democrats, please do not think I am some right winged extremist. I'm a moderate and often side with the democratic party but the extremist attitude I've been seeing in that party is really starting to get on my last nerve. You piss green and it's some how Bush's fault. And whoever said that we were "SAFE" under the Clinton Administration... well, I don't even think I have to say a word. At least I hope not. It kind of hurts that argument when you factor in that 95% of the events that lead up to 9/11 happened during the Clinton presidency and I don't ever remember him doing a damn thing about it. mellow.gif They even attacked and killed our soldiers on the U.S.S. Cole, an act of war, and not a finger was even raised.

Please read my first response in this post. Yes, terrorism was around when Clinton was in office. Terrorism has been a problem for decades around the world, we just werent faced with anything until the early 90's. Back in 1993 when the World Trade Center was attacked, Clinton went after and successfully prosecuted those involved. After that, there were a few minor attacks on embassys, but nothing comparable to the WTC or 9/11. September 11th happened 9 months into Bush's presidency. How is he not at least somewhat responsible.

The USS Cole bombings happened in October 2000, two months before Clinton was leaving office. How could he have possibly done something about it, when Al-Qaeda's involvement wasnt conclusive until the final days of his administration. Therefore, I feel as it was Bush's responsibility to prosecute those who were involved.

[smoke]

Actually Micheal, I am 18 and registered to vote. And like I explained in the PM, I meant the general feel of this entire forum was ignorant and close minded, not anyone specific or this thread.

Oh, just to let everyone know... that post was 99.9% sarcasm. The thing that makes me laugh is that I was purposely trying to sound like I was pulling stuff out of my ass like most people in here do to prove my point. Pretty annoying, eh? Now you know how I feel. Although what I said is in a sense what I think, I'm certainly not that rash. I blew it way out of proportion to prove my point and provide you with an example of how most people act around here. That's also why I tried to appear hypocritical. And I wasn't serious that I was going to "ignore" any post here after. I actually said I wasn't right after that. The only real point I was trying to get across was the fact that we need to stop blaming everyone for everything and pointing fingers. We need to move on.

Same goes for not providing facts. Most everyone in here never does and uses some half accurate source like Wikipedia, for example. Again, pretty annoying, huh? It's by no means not wanting to defend myself. Let's get that straight right this minute.

And thanks for the kind works Micheal! 18 years old and I've already mastered the rhetoric every politician uses. Hmmm... Maybe I'll run for some office one day.

Hah, that's the typical ignorant response I expect from Republicans. I cant remember the last time I watched CNN. Anyways, there's nothing wrong with CNN. You need to stop basing your opinions on what Mommy and Daddy tell you, and stop watching Fox news or something.

That's funny... I could have sworn I said in my post that I was a moderate... hmm. Maybe not? *scrolls up* Oh, wait... I did. What's even funnier is that you're getting on me about making the rash CNN generalization (which was me being sarcastic and putting forth the liberal extremist attitude) and then you turn right around and do the same thing by telling me to stop watching Fox news. Seems quite hypocritical to me. AND you proved my point. Thanks! For the record, I usually disagree with my parents political views on the rare event that I even discuss anything with them. I can't remember the last time I did actually.

You see... this is all why I could never take this debate that goes on in here seriously. Thank you all so much. You proved exactly what I was trying to get across. Peace out. No hard feelings, hmm?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Yes, but you also said a bunch of crap about getting sick of the extremist views of the Democrats. It's lovely that you think you're moderate, but that seems a bit contradictory when you choose to make broad and unfounded comments about one side.

Get off your high horse, Brenden; you're just making an ass of yourself.

that post was 99.9% sarcasm. The thing that makes me laugh is that I was purposely trying to sound like I was pulling stuff out of my ass like most people in here do to prove my point. Pretty annoying, eh? Now you know how I feel

No no, I think you just sound like a tool. Michael pwned you completely, and now you're trying to bandage your ego, and it isn't working very well because we don't buy it.

And thanks for the kind works Micheal! 18 years old and I've already mastered the rhetoric every politician uses. Hmmm... Maybe I'll run for some office one day.

Or not. That was not a compliment in the least. The last thing we need is another bullshit politicial who pulls things out of his ass for votes. And yes, I'm fully aware that you meant that as a joke too and blah blah blah, but you aren't funny so kindly stop.

You cannot prove that an entire forum full of people debate like idiots by being an idiot yourelf. That's really awful logic.

I blew it way out of proportion to prove my point and provide you with an example of how most people act around here. That's also why I tried to appear hypocritical. And I wasn't serious that I was going to "ignore" any post here after. I actually said I wasn't right after that. The only real point I was trying to get across was the fact that we need to stop blaming everyone for everything and pointing fingers. We need to move on.

You're definitely just being hypocritical, though. We aren't going to drop points because you say so, seeing as this is a debate, and the rest of us seem to be able to debate fairly well. Those who can't are perfectly good at getting yelled on their own. They don't need your help for us to see that some people don't debate well.

Regardless, though, there's no use in proving a point that's irrelevant. If you really did mean the whole forum in general (and i really can't imagine why you would), you should really try to "prove your point" somewhere it's actually pertinent. it's also quite silly to say that you don't mean the people in this topic, but people in the forum in general when you consider that not too many people do in fact post in here. And if we do piss you off so much, by all means, actually do stay out.


(Take it easy on the smilies too. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.)

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wotgKWWbtAs

[kimmytree]

Actually Micheal, I am 18 and registered to vote. And like I explained in the PM, I meant the general feel of this entire forum was ignorant and close minded, not anyone specific or this thread.

Oh, just to let everyone know... that post was 99.9% sarcasm. The thing that makes me laugh is that I was purposely trying to sound like I was pulling stuff out of my ass like most people in here do to prove my point. Pretty annoying, eh? Now you know how I feel. Although what I said is in a sense what I think, I'm certainly not that rash. I blew it way out of proportion to prove my point and provide you with an example of how most people act around here. That's also why I tried to appear hypocritical. And I wasn't serious that I was going to "ignore" any post here after. I actually said I wasn't right after that. The only real point I was trying to get across was the fact that we need to stop blaming everyone for everything and pointing fingers. We need to move on.

Same goes for not providing facts. Most everyone in here never does and uses some half accurate source like Wikipedia, for example. Again, pretty annoying, huh? It's by no means not wanting to defend myself. Let's get that straight right this minute.

And thanks for the kind works Micheal! 18 years old and I've already mastered the rhetoric every politician uses. Hmmm... Maybe I'll run for some office one day.



That's funny... I could have sworn I said in my post that I was a moderate... hmm. Maybe not? *scrolls up* Oh, wait... I did. What's even funnier is that you're getting on me about making the rash CNN generalization (which was me being sarcastic and putting forth the liberal extremist attitude) and then you turn right around and do the same thing by telling me to stop watching Fox news. Seems quite hypocritical to me. AND you proved my point. Thanks! For the record, I usually disagree with my parents political views on the rare event that I even discuss anything with them. I can't remember the last time I did actually.

You see... this is all why I could never take this debate that goes on in here seriously. Thank you all so much. You proved exactly what I was trying to get across. Peace out. No hard feelings, hmm?

Well, it was hard to tell if you were being serious or not. I dont exactly find it amusing. Yeah, some people do post stuff like that, but its rare for me to see something as ridiculous as what you're posting. If you want to prove something like that, just start your own topic.



And you didnt sound exactly moderate, with all the Democrat bashing. I mentioned FOX news because people who actually believe the crap you posted usually believe their crap. And how is that being hypocritical, when you did the exact same thing?



Hah, no hard feelings. Sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wotgKWWbtAs

Ahhhhh. WTF? I didnt need to see that.



I'll never be able to look at cows the same way again.

[smoke]

^ Well I wasn't trying to amuse anyone anyways. And don't give me that " " look! Haha.

Niki (sp?), I'm on no high horse! I promise! Just some things I read in here get to me. I really shouldn't let them but they bother me. I am indeed a moderate. I don't ever just go with one side. I said before often times I find my self agreeing with democrats but it's the recent attitude that has been worrying me.

And I'm honestly not trying to "back out" because Micheal "pwned" me. I think that's silly of you to accuse me of doing such. It's almost as if you're calling me a liar. I sure hope not. You better have good reasoning to back that statement up. I respect Micheal's opinion a lot and I actually enjoy debating with him. I'd never give up a chance to argue with him on something I was being serious on. And if you hadn't noticed that first post was way out of character for me. That should have been everyone's first indication that I was being some what sarcastic.

Anyways, that's what you think and it's not at all true. Oh, ok... I'm sucked in. It's too late now. I will give my honest opinion on Clinton so me and Micheal may indeed debate.

As I said before, I really do like Clinton as a person. He has everything a good politician needs as far as personality. I've actually wanted to meet him for quite a number of years now because of that. I don't think he was a good president because of all of what went on during his presidency and all that went unchecked. I'm not really worried about the the sex scandal at this point so let's just skip that. I must say that lying about it and then getting caught wasn't exactly the most intelligent thing I've ever seen, however. You guys keep screaming "economy" but in all honesty what did he himself actually do? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the economy was already well on it's way to rising at the end of the first Bush's presidency. I'm trying so hard not to bring Bush into this simply because I'm sick and tired of it coming up EVERY single time someone even mentions how Clinton did. I think it's funny because it proves that they have little to work with and have to try and point the finger on someone else. Look at what Clinton had to deal with economic wise as opposed to our current President Bush.

Enough about that. Let me focus on some lesser things Clinton gets praised for.

I always hear how Clinton was so loved by other countries in the world. Yeah, that's because he liked to pretend that nothing wrong was going on in the world while be was kissing butt. Let's not forget that in the process North Korea started their weapons program and Al-Qaeda was plotting the biggest attack in history on America. I'm sure it seemed all too surreal that anyone would attempt to attack America and I'm sure that's what Clinton was thinking too. In his mind there was no terrorist threat. That's why he never acted of the numerous reports on possible attacks on U.S. soil. Let's not forget that he spent much of his time trying to cover his own actions with Ms. Lewinsky, but I digress.

I've heard numerous accounts on news channels (both CNN and Fox News, haha) talk about how Clinton should get credit for trying to help with Social Security and Medicare. He proposed a reform for both and thankfully, neither were accepted. The funding wasn't there and the "reforms" weren't at all reasonable. In a perfect world, maybe, but not in America. That being said, give me some programs that Clinton got passed that did help our economy. I'd like to hear a few because I'm having trouble thinking of any.

These are just a few points I'd like to bring up. My humble opinion on Clinton is that he wasn't that great of a president. I'm not going to sit here and say he was the worst ever because that kind of talk makes me just as upset as anyone saying he was better than Bush. Man, you guys got me to post in debate... You're terrible. Haha.

[*Statues/Shadows*]

If only I had the energy to respond to that...
I'll do it tomorrow.

To prevent this from being spam, I will point out, though, that if anything, you should dislike Clinton as a person more than a politician. If you're going to judge him from his personage at all, which I don't especially recommend, eerything would indicate that he was a worse person than president whether you agreed with his politics or not. People generally tend to frown upon having and then lying about affairs...hence the impeachment.

And while I'm at it, as I said on the last page, he wasn't a very liberal Democrat, so as you insist you're so moderate, I'm not entirely sure i understand why you're insisting Clinton wasn't a better president than Bush, when Clinton was much more moderate than Bush. From what you're saying, you should agree much more with Clinton's politics.

And now I really need to finish my essay. But I will get back to this sometime.

[kimmytree]

As I said before, I really do like Clinton as a person. He has everything a good politician needs as far as personality. I've actually wanted to meet him for quite a number of years now because of that. I don't think he was a good president because of all of what went on during his presidency and all that went unchecked. I'm not really worried about the the sex scandal at this point so let's just skip that. I must say that lying about it and then getting caught wasn't exactly the most intelligent thing I've ever seen, however. You guys keep screaming "economy" but in all honesty what did he himself actually do? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the economy was already well on it's way to rising at the end of the first Bush's presidency. I'm trying so hard not to bring Bush into this simply because I'm sick and tired of it coming up EVERY single time someone even mentions how Clinton did. I think it's funny because it proves that they have little to work with and have to try and point the finger on someone else. Look at what Clinton had to deal with economic wise as opposed to our current President Bush.

Yeah, he's got the perfect personality as a politician. He's an amazing speaker. I dont think the whole sex scandal is that important of an issue anymore either. As far as the economy goes, his presidency included the longest period of economic growth in our history, mostly due to budget reforms. He made cutting the national debt a priority. There was an average economic growth of 4% a year, the economy grew for over one hundred consecutive months, the longest ever. Over 22 million jobs were created, the median family income increased significantly, and the unemployment dropped below 4%, the lowest its been since the 1960's. More people owned a home than ever before, and inflation dropped to its lowest rate in over 30 years. The number of welfare recipients dropped by the millions, and millions of people were out of poverty.

Unfortunately, I dont know all that much about Bush senior's presidency in detail, and on the economy. I just know that the statistics, that after Bush and Regan, the economy wasnt doing very well... and Clinton turned that all around.

I always hear how Clinton was so loved by other countries in the world. Yeah, that's because he liked to pretend that nothing wrong was going on in the world while be was kissing butt. Let's not forget that in the process North Korea started their weapons program and Al-Qaeda was plotting the biggest attack in history on America. I'm sure it seemed all too surreal that anyone would attempt to attack America and I'm sure that's what Clinton was thinking too. In his mind there was no terrorist threat. That's why he never acted of the numerous reports on possible attacks on U.S. soil. Let's not forget that he spent much of his time trying to cover his own actions with Ms. Lewinsky, but I digress.

Thats not necessarily true. We had no legitimate reasons to attack another country or to go to war. Its not like we just sat back and did nothing to protect ourselves during his presidency. Kissing whose butt?
Al-Qaeda's been planning attacks on everyone for what seems like forever. Clinton tried to capture Bin Laden. Alot of Republicans try to say that he had them and let them go, when thats not the case at all. From what I know, a Saudi civilian (not the government) claimed to have him. As a country, we've never negotiated with a civilian/middle man like that, and we werent going to then either. Yeah, Clinton could have done a little more to prevent terrorism, but look at all the warnings Bush and his cabinet recieved prior to 9/11. (look back at one of my earlier posts). Bush seems more to blame on that one than Clinton in my eyes.

I've heard numerous accounts on news channels (both CNN and Fox News, haha) talk about how Clinton should get credit for trying to help with Social Security and Medicare. He proposed a reform for both and thankfully, neither were accepted. The funding wasn't there and the "reforms" weren't at all reasonable. In a perfect world, maybe, but not in America. That being said, give me some programs that Clinton got passed that did help our economy. I'd like to hear a few because I'm having trouble thinking of any.

First off, as far as I know, we can thank Hilary for the whole Medicare thing that failed in Clinton's 1st term. Theres the Brady Bill, which required a five day waiting period on handgun purchases; the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits working class families with dependent children; in 1993 taxes were raised on the wealthiest Americans, while taxes were lowered for the lower/middle class, and tax cuts were made availible for small buisnesses; violent crime control and law enforcement act; welfare reform bill, millions towards a counter-terroirism agreement with israel to track down terrorists; increased the minimum wage; defense of marriage act, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman; ect...

These are just a few points I'd like to bring up. My humble opinion on Clinton is that he wasn't that great of a president. I'm not going to sit here and say he was the worst ever because that kind of talk makes me just as upset as anyone saying he was better than Bush. Man, you guys got me to post in debate... You're terrible. Haha.

Hehe.

And while I'm at it, as I said on the last page, he wasn't a very liberal Democrat, so as you insist you're so moderate, I'm not entirely sure i understand why you're insisting Clinton wasn't a better president than Bush, when Clinton was much more moderate than Bush. From what you're saying, you should agree much more with Clinton's politics.

Thats true, Clinton was more of a moderate than a liberal. As far as the economy goes, he was definately more liberal. But as far as gay marriage and other moral issues, he was more moderate/conservative to a certain degree (besides the whole sex scandal... hah).

[smoke]

^ But can we really attribute that to Clinton himself or should we focus on what was going on in the world? Nothing was really going on that could have made the economy suffer. The economy suffered after Bush got in office because of the stock market's dot-com scare. Everyone was afraid of the whole thing coming down. I believe that it was beginning to worry people even at the tail end of Clinton's presidency. But who's to blame either one? That wasn't really Clinton or Bush's fault. Also, let's not forget about 9/11. It's amazing out economy stayed in tact after that at all. I think we did pretty good considering the impact it had. I'm not going to say that Clinton didn't help the economy at all but he didn't do a whole lot that we can speak of. He was just in the right place at the right time.

Clinton didn't turn it around. It was already on it's way back up at the end of the former Bush's presidency. Everything was starting to go smoothly again. It's not really anything Clinton did in particular. At least not that I can see.

I know we didn't have a whole lot of reasons to go to war. I never said anything about war but we had plenty of reasons to at least investigate. And I agree with you. I think it's pretty stupid to say "Clinton let him go" when we never had him in the first place. But, Clinton could have stepped in at any time and said "Hand him over" or at least deal with him in some way. Don't forget that America has an awful lot of power. I'm sure they would've listened to us or at least helped us out had we said anything. Clinton had a lot more warnings than Bush did and Bush by no means ignored them all. There were many more terrorist plots that were said to happen that didn't happen. Remember how shocked everyone was during 9/11? We never even conceived that it could have happened. I'm sure that's the same way both Clinton and Bush felt when they received the early warnings. I really don't think there's much Bush could have done. The terrorists had been planning it for years and years. It was already well into the process by the time Bush got into office.

You point out some excellent things that Clinton was able to get passed but was that really the reason the economy was rising? I think it merely added to it. I think it's absurd to say that Clinton was the whole reason the economy was doing better. Also, congress has the most power in that department. They're really the ones who decide what gets passed and what doesn't. The majority of Clinton's bills were rejected. Whether that was good or bad, we'll never know. It had a lot to do with the finance at the time. Either way, aren't a lot of those bills still in effect today? I don't remember Bush ever putting an end to them. I could be wrong though. It's early in the morning, haha. Anyways, they aren't working now. Why do you think they worked then? I believe it was because the economy in Clinton's presidency was just all around better off because of the state the world was in. I think it would have been just as good had some other person taken office.

If only I had the energy to respond to that...
I'll do it tomorrow.

To prevent this from being spam, I will point out, though, that if anything, you should dislike Clinton as a person more than a politician. If you're going to judge him from his personage at all, which I don't especially recommend, everything would indicate that he was a worse person than president whether you agreed with his politics or not. People generally tend to frown upon having and then lying about affairs...hence the impeachment.

And while I'm at it, as I said on the last page, he wasn't a very liberal Democrat, so as you insist you're so moderate, I'm not entirely sure i understand why you're insisting Clinton wasn't a better president than Bush, when Clinton was much more moderate than Bush. From what you're saying, you should agree much more with Clinton's politics.

And now I really need to finish my essay. But I will get back to this sometime.

Yeah I understand. Sometimes I'm too tired or just don't feel like replying.

I don't see how you think I should dislike him more as a person as opposed to a president. If someone commits adultery it doesn't mean they are a terrible person. It means they made a mistake. I'm not too quick to judge when things like that happen but when the president of the United States does it, it's a completely different issue. Wouldn't you agree? The president is considered the leader of this country and should be held way more responsible. I always try to separate the people themselves from their politics to a certain degree. Politics can be a nasty environment. I can forgive him personally for his mistakes but I can't forgive him politically. If that makes any sense. I think you know what I'm trying to say. Clinton is a very good "people person." I think he'd be pretty fun to hang around with.

And I know that he wasn't a very liberal democrat. I don't believe I ever said he was. Just because someone is leaning more towards my party certainly doesn't mean I should just agree with them on everything. That is why I'm a moderate after all because I tend to agree with people from both sides as well as disagree with people from both sides. I go by my view not by what my party views. Honestly there are both Democrats and Republicans that disgust me. I mentioned the democratic party because it pertained to the topic. Clinton was indeed a democrat after all, right?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

My point was that you are judging him, but I cannot figure out what sort of criteria you're judging him by. So what if he seems fun to be around? How is that relevant? He was charismatic, which is good for a politician, but if you dislike his politics so much, that's fairly contradictory, especially since all you're really saying is that his circumstances just happened to be better, so he's not actually a better president than Bush. I'm still curious what evidance you're basig your statements about his "warnings" on too. And personally, I don't really think preemption is a particularly good idea, and as he was technically a democrat, I imagine he wouldn't have either, seeing as it's republicans who insist on so much military crap.

Of course it's absurd to say Clinton was the whole reason the economy was rising. There's external factors and the checks and balances thing, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a factor at all.

You didn't say he was very liberal; I didn't say you did. I can make points that aren't directly based on your posts. And I'm perfectly well aware of what a moderate is and political ideology and all of that. You're completely missing my point.

[douchebag]

I don't see how you think I should dislike him more as a person as opposed to a president. If someone commits adultery it doesn't mean they are a terrible person. It means they made a mistake. I'm not too quick to judge when things like that happen but when the president of the United States does it, it's a completely different issue. Wouldn't you agree? The president is considered the leader of this country and should be held way more responsible. I always try to separate the people themselves from their politics to a certain degree. Politics can be a nasty environment. I can forgive him personally for his mistakes but I can't forgive him politically. If that makes any sense. I think you know what I'm trying to say. Clinton is a very good "people person." I think he'd be pretty fun to hang around with.

And I know that he wasn't a very liberal democrat. I don't believe I ever said he was. Just because someone is leaning more towards my party certainly doesn't mean I should just agree with them on everything. That is why I'm a moderate after all because I tend to agree with people from both sides as well as disagree with people from both sides. I go by my view not by what my party views. Honestly there are both Democrats and Republicans that disgust me. I mentioned the democratic party because it pertained to the topic. Clinton was indeed a democrat after all, right?

By what standards, though, are you gauging his political success? Even the most astute political scientists today can't come to a consensus on his effectiveness overall, mainly because the positive aspects are in equilibrium with the negative aspects of his tenure in the Oval Office. It's difficult to pin responsibility on a person or group of people in American politics because of the separation of powers (especially in this case, since the Congress was largely Republican juxtaposed to a Democratic president), and thus, difficult to assess political success in such a neutral, quiet period of time. And don't kid yourself, Clinton's presidency was vastly free of turmoil in light of what most presidents have faced.

So, if the political experts teeter so dangerously on opposite ends of the poles, what makes you so confident that you "can't forgive his political mistakes"?

[*I Shot JFK*]

Hi Justin

[*disco infiltrator*]

However, that's irrelevant. I don't blame any president for terrorists hating us. The terrorists will want to kill us no matter who is in charge. As long as we're not going to convert to Islam, they will want us dead.

I know this post is kind of out-of-date for this discussion, but gotta do it:

I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he f**king said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds? Answer: yes.

Thank you.

[*kryogenix*]

Should I get back into this debate or not? It's so much fun just posting stuff in lounge and pictures...

[*Statues/Shadows*]

It amuses me that you just quoted David Cross.

[kimmytree]

Should I get back into this debate or not? It's so much fun just posting stuff in lounge and pictures...

Agreed. I've kinda lost intrest.

[twinkles6801]

I liked him better because our country had little to no debt then but now we are in great debt. Things are so out of wak now. I think that bush is in it more for himself than for us.

[kimmytree]

I agree. Clinton isnt completely responsible for the surplus, but he definately contributed.

Thats true, but he's just a puppet. Cheneys the one who's looking out for himself and Haliburton (sp?).

[*Statues/Shadows*]

I'm still irked that Clinton's personal affairs were supposed to be relevant to his presidency. Lots of politicans have extra-mariatal affairs, and I really could care less, because it really effects me none at all. Personal integrity =/= poltical integrity. I cannot stand people's self-righteous judgements of other people's moral, when they're entirely subjective.

[kimmytree]

I'm still irked that Clinton's personal affairs were supposed to be relevant to his presidency. Lots of politicans have extra-mariatal affairs, and I really could care less, because it really effects me none at all. Personal integrity =/= poltical integrity. I cannot stand people's self-righteous judgements of other people's moral, when they're entirely subjective.

I agree. He wasnt hurting anyone but himself, and his wife. I dont think it affected us as a country at all.

OMFG. That reminds me. Back when the whole Foley guy came out (congressman who had gay relationships with minors)... My American History teacher said that what Clinton did was worse.

Shoot me now.