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.