Bill Clinton

[VeeJay]

...just sick of the sumbitch.

Every time I turn on the news, there he is yammering about how great the eight years he had in the White House were, how he's not responsible for something someone said. Says Obama is a fairy tale, then says he's really not when his "first black president" status is challenged.

Just go away, ya fugger.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Minus the pu$$ymongering, he was a very good president.

Basically, he's a liberal Republican.

[My Opinion Matters]

I'm thinking of growing a mustache.

Or is it moustache??? :confused:

[AggieTool]

Minus the pu$$ymongering, he was a very good president.

Basically, he's a liberal Republican.

As much as I hate to say it, I agree.

I'll take a BJ over 4000 dead in a contrived war any day.

[VeeJay]

All kidding aside about the fantastic eight years under his watch, the most ethical administration in the history of the republic, just a little wore out on hearing him crow about it.

Do we really care what he thinks about this election??

[Viking Kitten]

It's the MSM. I know Bill Clinton annoys you, so I'm showing him a lot to distract you from noticing that I'm tricking you into selecting John McCain as your candidate so I can destroy him right before the general election with all the secret evidence I'm withholding from you now.

We decided this at the last meeting.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Minus the pu$$ymongering, he was a very good president.

Basically, he's a liberal Republican.No, a liberal Republican is a liberal Republican. Clinton is just a regular old democrat politician.

[SicEmBaylor]

No, a liberal Republican is a liberal Republican. Clinton is just a regular old democrat politician.
Except for the fact that he wasn't.

Actually, at the time Clinton was a very new type of Democrat. Look up the history and growth of the DLC. Clinton was like night and day compared to the typical old blue collar Mondale/LBJ style Democrat. VERY different.

The great irony of Clinton's Presidency is that it may prove to be more conservative than George W. Bush's.

[usmc-sooner]

President Clinton did a lot of bad things when it comes to strategically defending our country. He did a few good things as well.

I've never met a real Bill Clinton fan who will actually nail down exactly what it was he did that was great. It's usually something like "well he didn't lead us into war" and I think how little they really know.

To me basically his strength was he came into office after 12 years of good times and decided I'm not going to change anything major.

[SicEmBaylor]

President Clinton did a lot of bad things when it comes to strategically defending our country. He did a few good things as well.

I've never met a real Bill Clinton fan who will actually nail down exactly what it was he did that was great. It's usually something like "well he didn't lead us into war" and I think how little they really know.

To me basically his strength was he came into office after 12 years of good
times and decided I'm not going to change anything major.

Exactly, he didn't do anything really earth shattering which is why conservatives should appreciate him so much. Having said that, he was absolutely lousy on national security issues and left us in a very dangerous and poor position going into the War on Terror.

But the guy successfully managed a booming economy by essentially staying out of the way. He didn't do much in the way of tax cutting, but he was big on targeted tax rebates. He signed a sweeping welfare reform bill into law. There were a lot of positives to be found in his administration especially compared to the liberalness of Bush.


Having said all that....Clinton, I don't think, wanted to be as conservative a President as he ended up being. Look at his record from 92-early 95 and you have a good indication of how he really wanted to govern, but he was a smart enough politician to know the political winds in the nation had shifted and he acted accordingly.

[AggieTool]

Having said that, he was absolutely lousy on national security issues and left us in a very dangerous and poor position going into the War on Terror.


<I'm no Clinton fan>

Interesting. Yet GW was able to whoop the Taliban with "Clinton's military" only weeks after 9/11.

The clusterf**k in Iraq that is limiting our resources and costing $$$$ is hurting our efforts on the war on terror to a much greater extent IMO.

Not to mention the post 9/11 goodwill we've ****ed away.

[usmc-sooner]

<I'm no Clinton fan>

Interesting. Yet GW was able to whoop the Taliban with "Clinton's military" only weeks after 9/11.

The clusterf**k in Iraq that is limiting our resources and costing $$$$ is hurting our efforts on the war on terror to a much greater extent IMO.

Not to mention the post 9/11 goodwill we've ****ed away.

I wasn't involved in a cluster****, been there done that, if you were I'd care to hear about it.

[Mongo]

you know, the thing about repubs, if they are worth their salt, can say GW Bush is ****ing things up, or he isnt who he said he was. I have yet to meet a democrat, worth their salt, even admit that Clinton had any faults.

exactly my point said by USMC


I've never met a real Bill Clinton fan who will actually nail down exactly what it was he did that was great. It's usually something like "well he didn't lead us into war" and I think how little they really know.

[AggieTool]

I wasn't involved in a cluster****, been there done that, if you were I'd care to hear about it.

I retired in '06 after 21 years.:)

IMHO, the military is performing brilliantly.

The leadership scrood the pooch on the occupation planning.

Now, we're enabling an inept Iraqi gov. and stretching our resources thin.

Like I said, I'm no fan of BC, but I know a cluster foxtrot when I see one.;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

I've never met a real Bill Clinton fan who will actually nail down exactly what it was he did that was great. It's usually something like "well he didn't lead us into war" and I think how little they really know.


a few examples...

He was not a lap dog for unions like some democratic hacks are. He supported free trade and fought for lowering tariffs to help lower costs for consumers.

He compromised with a Republican congress on welfare reform.

One of his savviest moves was to appoint Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury. Wall Street dug it and really liked Clinton. Wall Street would hate someone like corporate bashing John Edwards. Clinton focused rhetoric was distinctly different from liberal "evil-corporations" bashers.

He also brought in a pub to be his secretary of defense.

Even Newt Gringrich complimented Clinton for his efforts to compromise on issues such as welfare reform. Of course Clinton's pu$$ymongering and resulting impeachment ended the good relations with the pubs.

Jesse Helms, Mr. Southern Conservative himself, had high praise for Clinton's nomination of Madeline Albright for Sec of State.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Except for the fact that he wasn't.

Actually, at the time Clinton was a very new type of Democrat. Look up the history and growth of the DLC. Clinton was like night and day compared to the typical old blue collar Mondale/LBJ style Democrat. VERY different.

The great irony of Clinton's Presidency is that it may prove to be more conservative than George W. Bush's.The republican majority that got elected in response to Clinton's Hillary Health Care and other socialist scares kept Cllinton somewhat in check.(and you should know that) Of course, over time the republican legislators started spending like democrats until they lost control in '06, due also in part to dem candidates campaigning as conservatives, and the media convincing enough people that the republicans were actually more corrupt than the democrats.
agreed that Bush has been a big social spender. One of his worst traits.

[usmc-sooner]

I retired in '06 after 21 years.:)

IMHO, the military is performing brilliantly.

The leadership scrood the pooch on the occupation planning.

Now, we're enabling an inept Iraqi gov. and stretching our resources thin.

Like I said, I'm no fan of BC, but I know a cluster foxtrot when I see one.;)

guys like you crack me up, it's not over yet you're willing to declare defeat.

at what point did leadership screw the pooch? when we removed Hussein?
when we took out his kids? when we established a stronghold in the Mid East?

As a Marine I sure don't agree with your evaluation skills.

[SicEmBaylor]

The republican majority that got elected in response to Clinton's Hillary Health Care and other socialist scares kept Cllinton somewhat in check.(and you should know that)[quote]

I do know that, and I agree with you. That's what I was referring to with the changing political winds.

[quote]Of course, over time the republican legislators started spending like democrats until they lost control in '06, due also in part to dem candidates campaigning as conservatives, and the media convincing enough people that the republicans were actually more corrupt than the democrats.
agreed that Bush has been a big social spender. One of his worst traits.

It's not just the social spending, but yeah I agree with the above. The only thing I'll add is that the Democrats may have been portraying themselves (in some local district races) as conservatives, but the Republicans have been openly acting like liberals.

[usmc-sooner]

a few examples...

He was not a lap dog for unions like some democratic hacks are. He supported free trade and fought for lowering tariffs to help lower costs for consumers.

He compromised with a Republican congress on welfare reform.

One of his savviest moves was to appoint Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury. Wall Street dug it and really liked Clinton. Wall Street would hate someone like corporate bashing John Edwards. Clinton focused rhetoric was distinctly different from liberal "evil-corporations" bashers.

He also brought in a pub to be his secretary of defense.

Even Newt Gringrich complimented Clinton for his efforts to compromise on issues such as welfare reform. Of course Clinton's pu$$ymongering and resulting impeachment ended the good relations with the pubs.

Jesse Helms, Mr. Southern Conservative himself, had high praise for Clinton's nomination of Madeline Albright for Sec of State.

like I said his supporters can't point out what it was he did.

[AggieTool]

guys like you crack me up, it's not over yet you're willing to declare defeat.

at what point did leadership screw the pooch? when we removed Hussein?
when we took out his kids? when we established a stronghold in the Mid East?

As a Marine I sure don't agree with your evaluation skills.

Fair enough.:)

4000 dead to kill 3 guys.

'Cause aluminum tubes and yellow cake were threatening our freeberty!

I woulda much rathered Israel SF or a well placed JDAM take out Saddam and his punk kids. ;)

I know you take it personally as a good Marine should, and I'm very much in debt to your service. Even as a retiree.;)

I just have changed my view on the whole matter 4 years later. Who knows, maybe you will too 4 years from now.:)

[usmc-sooner]

Fair enough.:)

4000 dead to kill 3 guys.



only an aggie could get these numbers

wow, it's 4000/3

damn I'm lucky to be alivel

[AggieTool]

only an aggie could get these numbers

wow, it's 4000/3

damn I'm lucky to be alivel


Semper Fi brother!:)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

like I said his supporters can't point out what it was he did.


ARE YOU DEAF OR JUST OBTUSE?

I'll take Clinton's successes over the two domestic hallmarks are the Bush Boys' administrations: American with Disabilities Act and No Child Left Behind. Talk about a liberal's wet dream.

[SicEmBaylor]

ARE YOU DEAF OR JUST OBTUSE?

I'll take Clinton's successes over the two domestic hallmarks are the Bush Boys' administrations: American with Disabilities Act and No Child Left Behind. Talk about a liberal's wet dream.

You're forgetting the MPDP.

[JohnnyMack]

Bill Clinton is a great extemporaneous speaker who happened to be in office during a time in which our country experienced a great financial boon (tech stocks). So he was able to relate to the common man and the economy was good so everyone thinks favorably of him. Was he a great President? Hardly. He was just in the right place at the right time and was smart enough to just let it ride and not screw it up.

[AggieTool]

Bill Clinton is a great extemporaneous speaker who happened to be in office during a time in which our country experienced a great financial boon (tech stocks). So he was able to relate to the common man and the economy was good so everyone thinks favorably of him. Was he a great President? Hardly. He was just in the right place at the right time and was smart enough to just let it ride and not screw it up.

I agree. But then again, contrast is everything.:rolleyes:

[VeeJay]

He was just in the right place at the right time and was smart enough to just let it ride and not screw it up.

I agree that Clinton was smart enough to let the good times keep rolling. Greenspan.

I also wonder if he secretly lobbied against HillaryCare because a re-engineering of 17% of the national economy would have been one major clusterf*ck.

What is neat now is to see some candidates, Hillary included, railing against corporate greed, fatcats at the top, and inadequate taxes on the rich. While all during the 90's there seemed to be no homeless problem, no middle class financial crises - it was all fun and games and everyone was sharing in the wealth.

[crawfish]

I was never poorer than during the Clinton years.

Of course, that might have had something to do with the fact we started having kids and my wife quit her job to take care of 'em. But what they hey, I'm blaming Clinton anyway. :)

[usmc-sooner]

I retired in '06 after 21 years.:)

IMHO, the military is performing brilliantly.



I respect your service thanks

[r5TPsooner]

I was never poorer than during the Clinton years.

Of course, that might have had something to do with the fact we started having kids and my wife quit her job to take care of 'em. But what they hey, I'm blaming Clinton anyway. :)


I concur. I NEVER received a single tax reimbursement check in eight years under his watch. AS a matter of fact, I somehow ended up paying a lot of money come tax time every year, and it's not like we made that much to begin with. I think the most that the wife and I made combined in one year under his watch was around 80k.

Somehow, we make over twice that amount now and get a tax check back every April. I don't know if it was Clinton's fault or not, but we were absolutely, positively, financially f**ked during his administration.

[usmc-sooner]

what I don't get is the Democrats talk about change and then offer us Clinton. How much of a change is that? We've either had a Clinton or Bush for the last 20 years, why change just make it 24 and tell the public it's change.
I'm not real excited about the Republican candidates either, it's like they pick of bunch of guys that noone really wants. Seems like both parties offer the same group of blah to ensure things just stay the way they are.

[C&CDean]

Last time I checked, Bush wasn't the only guy who wanted to send troops into Iraq. Why do all the Clinton-slobberers forget that?

[AggieTool]

Last time I checked, Bush wasn't the only guy who wanted to send troops into Iraq. Why do all the Clinton-slobberers forget that?

Clinton did advocate regime change in Iraq, but never pulled the trigger.

[usmc-sooner]

Clinton did advocate regime change in Iraq, but never pulled the trigger.

He should have a long time ago.

Also I believe Dean was talking about Hillary along with a lot of other Democrat's voting for the war, then supposedly changing their minds.

[1stTimeCaller]

a few examples...

He was not a lap dog for unions like some democratic hacks are. He supported free trade and fought for lowering tariffs to help lower costs for consumers.

He compromised with a Republican congress on welfare reform.

One of his savviest moves was to appoint Robert Rubin as Secretary of Treasury. Wall Street dug it and really liked Clinton. Wall Street would hate someone like corporate bashing John Edwards. Clinton focused rhetoric was distinctly different from liberal "evil-corporations" bashers.

He also brought in a pub to be his secretary of defense.

Even Newt Gringrich complimented Clinton for his efforts to compromise on issues such as welfare reform. Of course Clinton's pu$$ymongering and resulting impeachment ended the good relations with the pubs.

Jesse Helms, Mr. Southern Conservative himself, had high praise for Clinton's nomination of Madeline Albright for Sec of State.

So Welform reform is what makes Bill Clinton a great President? Or nominating a woman for SoS<cue Tuba posting pic of MA with Kim Jong Il>? Or having so many different SoD that one happened to be a pub?
Or Appointing Rubin to SoT?

That's a fine list of accomplishments for 8 years of work.

Awesome. And I'm not a Bill Clinton hater.

[Rhino]

Bill Clinton will be speaking at OU on January 31.

No other details yet.

[Condescending Sooner]

Clinton did advocate regime change in Iraq, but never pulled the trigger.

He also never pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. The fact that he did nothing is a big reason we are in the mess we are today.

[SteelClip49]

I am in a political communication class and in a Television News class in which we are covering the campaigns here in Oklahoma and hell, might as well go see President Clinton on the 31st. Whether we/I like him or not, doesn't hurt to hear what he has to say and expand my knowledge on whatever issues are covered because I am really politically stupid.

[VeeJay]

doesn't hurt to hear what he has to say and expand my knowledge on whatever issues are covered because I am really politically stupid.

Fall for the Clinton speeches and you're likely to stay that way.

[sooner n houston]

He also never pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. The fact that he did nothing is a big reason we are in the mess we are today.

Gotta respectfully disagree! I think we would be fighting this war no matter what anyone did. Maybe not here and now, but sooner or later it was going to happen. Too many here don't seem to get it, these whackos want us all dead. And they are willing to pay any price to get it.

[SicEmBaylor]

I am in a political communication class and in a Television News class in which we are covering the campaigns here in Oklahoma and hell, might as well go see President Clinton on the 31st. Whether we/I like him or not, doesn't hurt to hear what he has to say and expand my knowledge on whatever issues are covered because I am really politically stupid.

Please stop now. Drop the class, and please don't vote.

Having said that, I met Clinton in HS. Very charming guy.

[Sooner98]

Two of Clinton's greatest acts as President were undoubtedly ordering Operation Desert Fox (the bombing campaign in December 1998 which was done to disrupt the ability of Saddam Hussein to produce weapons of mass destruction), and the signing of the Iraq Liberation Act (which made regime change in Iraq the official policy of the United States).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_%28December_1998%29

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act

These military actions against Iraq were obviously 100% justified, due to the truthfulness of Clinton's claims that Saddam was mass-producing WMD's, and that the urgent necessity to protect its neighbors and the interests of the United States was of utmost importance. Of course, this is totally unlike President Bush's similar claims against Saddam, which were all obviously lies and distortions, designed to justify a contrived and unnecessary war.

:rolleyes:

[SicEmBaylor]

Let me also say this.

Removing Milosevic was a foreign policy blunder every bit as big as the blunder that the most vehement anti-war protesters consider the removal of Saddam to have been.

[76soonergrad]

Clinton?

Did NOTHING after the USS Cole was bombed. Remember a World Trade Center bombing under his watch? He may as well have painted a target on NYC. Got foreign policy?

Sure. He made CHINA a "most favored nation" trading partner. Thus began the downhill spiral. They don't even recognize our copyright laws.

The 90's was the real decade of greed.

Got morality? Way before Monica, while governor, it was reported that the AR Highway Patrol would seek out women he was interested in & bring them to the governor's mansion. Comon knowledge. Someone finally came out with it & it aired on C-span. We lived in Little Rock then. Jennifer Flowers, Katherine Willey. Those are the only ones who came forward.

Also, he has never owned a house. The one in New York was co-signed. They didn't have a place to live after he was elected president. He had to be out of the mansion. They lived with Hilary's family.

The only positive I will say about him is that he is a great campaigner.

[76soonergrad]

Forgot. He also appointed a slew of liberal judges. Then he gave his rich cronies a "get out of jail free" pass right before he left office.

[Jerk]

You guys aren't giving Bill enough credit.

Before Bubba, China could launch an ICBM almost half way around the world with a single warhead and it had the accuracy to, perhaps, hit within an area the size of California.

After Bubba, China can now launch an ICBM half-way around the world with over a half-dozen independent warheads which can each land within 200 feet of their target.

[AggieTool]

Forgot. He also appointed a slew of liberal judges. Then he gave his rich cronies a "get out of jail free" pass right before he left office.

And he invaded a sovereign nation over aluminum tubes and yellowcake, getting 4000 US Military killed, thousands more maimed, and over 200k locals killed, while letting Afghanistan slide back into chaos because we don't have the resources.....

....oh wait....wrong president.;)

[SicEmBaylor]

And he invaded a sovereign nation over aluminum tubes and yellowcake, getting 4000 US Military killed, thousands more maimed, and over 200k locals killed, while letting Afghanistan slide back into chaos because we don't have the resources.....

....oh wait....wrong president.;)

How is the fact that it was a sovereign nation of any relevance if it's in our national security interests?

There are at least half a dozen examples of when we invaded a sovereign nation.

F-k. Germany was a sovereign nation, why is that relevant?

[AggieTool]

How is the fact that it was a sovereign nation of any relevance if it's in our national security interests?

There are at least half a dozen examples of when we invaded a sovereign nation.

F-k. Germany was a sovereign nation, why is that relevant?

Because we didn't invade Germany over aluminum tubes and yellow cake?:O

Sorry, I would rather have my 4000 brothers and sisters back at this point.

[Whet]

Back in 86-87, I lived near Branson and worked with an attorney from Arkansas. He used to tell me stories of the corruption in the executive branch of the Arkansas government. How the Governor and is wife were really slimy and involved in various sorts of schemes. (this guy's father was really politically connected in AK) Of course, at that time, I had no idea who Bill and Hillary Clinton were, or cared.....

[AggieTool]

Back in 86-87, I lived near Branson and worked with an attorney from Arkansas. He used to tell me stories of the corruption in the executive branch of the Arkansas government. How the Governor and is wife were really slimy and involved in various sorts of schemes. (this guy's father was really politically connected in AK) Of course, at that time, I had no idea who Bill and Hillary Clinton were, or cared.....


They are a slimy bunch, aren't they?:D

[KC//CRIMSON]

Lock Up Your Interns

by: Associated Press
1/17/2008 12:00 AM

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Former President Bill Clinton will be in Oklahoma later this month to campaign for his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, ahead of the Feb. 5 Democratic presidential primary election.

The ex-president will give a speech at the University of Oklahoma on Jan. 30 and will be the star attraction at a fundraising event, said Betty McElderry, Democratic national committeewoman from Oklahoma. Details were not immediately available.

Oklahoma Democrats were informed of plans for the fundraiser and speech by Tamera Luzzatto, Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, during a breakfast meeting on Thursday.

The meeting was held at the home of Mike and Susan Turpen. Hosts included two former Oklahoma first ladies -- Donna Nigh and Rhonda Walters -- and Secretary of State Susan Savage.

McElderry, a Clinton supporter, said offices to promote Clinton's presidential bid were being set up in Oklahoma City and Tulsa.

[SicEmBaylor]

Because we didn't invade Germany over aluminum tubes and yellow cake?:O

Sorry, I would rather have my 4000 brothers and sisters back at this point.

Then just say that. That's a decent enough opinion. Hell, I'm not the biggest fan of the war since I'm a committed isolationist, but once we're in it we damned well better win it.

Don't use the sovereign nation excuse though -- it's silly and makes us appear weak on national security.

[AggieTool]

Then just say that. That's a decent enough opinion. Hell, I'm not the biggest fan of the war since I'm a committed isolationist, but once we're in it we damned well better win it.

Don't use the sovereign nation excuse though -- it's silly and makes us appear weak on national security.


Fair enough.:)

[Jerk]

I'm a committed isolationist .
Sometimes I feel that way, too (even though I'm not).

I'd get a chuckle if we stopped all foriegn aid, closed all foriegn military bases, ended all military alliances, brought all troops home, left the UN, and said, "Hey world, you're on your own now...good luck."

Heh. It would almost be worth it to see their reaction.

But *sigh* every time we get the wild notion to do something like this, another war and/or genoicide occurs in Europe.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sometimes I feel that way, too (even though I'm not).

I'd get a chuckle if we stopped all foriegn aid, closed all foriegn military bases, ended all military alliances, brought all troops home, left the UN, and said, "Hey world, you're on your own now...good luck."

Heh. It would almost be worth it to see their reaction.

But *sigh* every time we get the wild notion to do something like this, another war and/or genoicide occurs in Europe.

Right, but ask yourself, "why is it our problem?"

Genocide is horrible, but it's not our problem. Having said that, WWII is a good example of when we legitimately needed to intervene simply because Hitler (and certainly Japan) were a real, true, and immediate threat to our national security.

It's going to be hard to disengage though from the mid-east which is really where all the problems are until we find an alternative to oil. That's why I wish we'd have a Manhattan style project to come up with something new that would make us energy independent. Then we could flash the bird and say "adios mofo's" to the rest of the world.

[Harry Beanbag]

It's going to be hard to disengage though from the mid-east which is really where all the problems are until we find an alternative to oil. That's why I wish we'd have a Manhattan style project to come up with something new that would make us energy independent. Then we could flash the bird and say "adios mofo's" to the rest of the world.


This is all I want for Christmas. Unfortunately, the federal government is way too corrupt to even consider the obvious solution.

[76soonergrad]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would that be drilling in Alaska? The area they want to drill is the size of a postage stamp compared to the state of Alaska.

[Harry Beanbag]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would that be drilling in Alaska? The area they want to drill is the size of a postage stamp compared to the state of Alaska.


No, it's finding an viable and affordable alternative to fossil fuels, at least for transportation.

[JohnnyMack]

No, it's finding an viable and affordable alternative to fossil fuels, at least for transportation.

Our government has been bought by the very people who make their fortune off of ensuring that DOESN'T happen. Our reliance on fossil fuels and lack of refineries isn't an accident.

[Harry Beanbag]

Our government has been bought by the very people who make their fortune off of ensuring that DOESN'T happen. Our reliance on fossil fuels and lack of refineries isn't an accident.


It certainly appears that way. I guess we'll just have Armageddon instead.

[Big Red Ron]

As much as I hate to say it, I agree.

I'll take a BJ over 4000 dead in a contrived war any day.Your handle is quite correct. If it weren't for his administration's naive foreign policy, we wouldn't have been attacked on 9-11 and we would have had to go into Iraq. Did you forget Hussein's assassination attempt on President 41 under Clinton's watch? What did Bill do?

You realize that at the end of 7 years of Clinton the economy was growing at a slower rate THAN AT ANY POINT UNDER BUSH, RIGHT?

Don't let facts get in the way of a stupid opinion.

[JohnnyMack]

It certainly appears that way. I guess we'll just have Armageddon instead.

...I don't wanna close my eyes...

[1stTimeCaller]

...I don't wanna fall asleep...

[JohnnyMack]

...I don't wanna fall asleep...

...cause I'd miss you babe...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You realize that at the end of 7 years of Clinton the economy was growing at a slower rate THAN AT ANY POINT UNDER BUSH, RIGHT?

Don't let facts get in the way of a stupid opinion.


http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/gdp_growth_q3_2003.jpg

Don't let facts get in the way of an uninformed claim.

[SicEmBaylor]

http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/gdp_growth_q3_2003.jpg

Don't let facts get in the way of an uninformed claim.

Eh, yeah...look at those '99 and '00 numbers and tell me the economy wasn't in steep decline.

If you want to blame a Republican who was only in office a few months following an 8 year Democratic administration for a declining economy then I thin it's pretty evident who is uninformed. I'm not saying Bush is great on the economy -- he's not. Hell, I don't even like Bush, but it's a difficult pill to swallow to blame him for the economy. Especially considering 9/11 pushed it over the edge unless you think Bush was responsible for that as well.

Having said that, the economy wasn't really Clinton's fault either.

[1stTimeCaller]

...cause I'd miss you babe...

... and I don't want to miss a thing...

[1stTimeCaller]

well, other than the negative numbers.

nothing to see here.

[Mjcpr]

ummm, maybe I'm reading his statement and your graph incorrectly but it seems that your graph backs up his claim.

Negative Growth < 0 or Positive Growth

[76soonergrad]

Our government has been bought by the very people who make their fortune off of ensuring that DOESN'T happen. Our reliance on fossil fuels and lack of refineries isn't an accident.



What is wrong with drilling at Anwar? Just asking.

[jeremy885]

http://www.aurorawdc.com/ci/gdp_growth_q3_2003.jpg

Don't let facts get in the way of an uninformed claim.


So Clinton gets "credit" for the tech boom but not the tech bust?

[jeremy885]

What did Bill do?
Launch a dozen tomahawks and check out the new intern?

[1stTimeCaller]

What is wrong with drilling at Anwar? Just asking.

As a person that punches holes in the ground to get oil and gas out I don't think there is anything wrong with drilling at Anwar.

Putting all of our time and energy into drilling there and not into a viable alternative to gasoline powered cars is a lot like just giving a person blood but not closing the artery. Sooner or later you're gonna be out of blood to add and you'll die.

It's more of a Band-Aid than anything else but I think we should tap into that field.

Although there may be better reasons to sit on it for the future as it's not going anywhere.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

So Clinton gets "credit" for the tech boom but not the tech bust?


I wasn't giving anyone credit or blame.

But the statement "... at the end of 7 years of Clinton the economy was growing at a slower rate THAN AT ANY POINT UNDER BUSH, RIGHT?" is an incorrect statement.

All four quarters at the end of 7 years of Clinton were positive growth rates. The first two quarters of 2000 were rather strong. Not one was negative.

Bush no doubt suffered from the tech bust hangover, which was not his fault., but neither was it Clinton's.

[SleestakSooner]

So Clinton gets "credit" for the tech boom but not the tech bust?

It's all Gore's fault for inventing that **** in the first place! Hell, he probably invented the planes the terrorists used too that bastard!

[SicEmBaylor]

Recessions happen. They're normal and can be helpful.

[jkjsooner]

He also never pulled the trigger on Bin Laden. The fact that he did nothing is a big reason we are in the mess we are today.

Or maybe it's because when he tried to do something the Rush Limbaugh's were screaming "Wag the Dog."

In my opinion, that is where the Lewinsky affair really hurt the Clinton administration. It created such a mess that Clinton couldn't effectively take on Bin Laden. I reserve a lot of blame for Clinton but I also believe some conservatives should get their share of blame as well. Bin Laden was a legitimate threat and killing him was necessary. Limbaugh turning it into a political issue hurt our country tremendously.

One thing I don't understand is how conservatives seem to always support wars started by Republicans (I'm talking Iraq here not Afghanistan) and question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees, yet they were quick to criticize Clinton for going into Bosnia. Hypocrisy? Yep.

[jkjsooner]

Let me also say this.

Removing Milosevic was a foreign policy blunder every bit as big as the blunder that the most vehement anti-war protesters consider the removal of Saddam to have been.

I recognize that there are a lot of similarities, but how did they turn out? In which one did we get a fairly peaceful result and which one is still a mess?

I recognize the anti-war protesters were not out in force in the Bosnian conflict (but there were some). Yes, they are hypocrites but there's no shortage of hypocrites from the other side in regards to these matters either.

[jkjsooner]

Also, he has never owned a house. The one in New York was co-signed. They didn't have a place to live after he was elected president. He had to be out of the mansion. They lived with Hilary's family.


What the hell does that have to do with anything?

[jkjsooner]

Sometimes I feel that way, too (even though I'm not).

I'd get a chuckle if we stopped all foriegn aid, closed all foriegn military bases, ended all military alliances, brought all troops home, left the UN, and said, "Hey world, you're on your own now...good luck."

Heh. It would almost be worth it to see their reaction.

But *sigh* every time we get the wild notion to do something like this, another war and/or genoicide occurs in Europe.

I think our quality of life is much more dependent on the rest of the world than you know. That's why every President has been very active in international affairs. The first Gulf War was 99% about oil and it's a damn good thing we fought it...

I'd love to be an isolationist but I just don't know if that's possible in the modern world without taking a huge quality of life hit.

[jkjsooner]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Would that be drilling in Alaska? The area they want to drill is the size of a postage stamp compared to the state of Alaska.

No, Alaska is not the solution. I think we should drill there but don't fool yourself into thinking it would be even remotely a cure to our energy needs.

[SicEmBaylor]

I think our quality of life is much more dependent on the rest of the world than you know. That's why every President has been very active in international affairs. The first Gulf War was 99% about oil and it's a damn good thing we fought it...

I'd love to be an isolationist but I just don't know if that's possible in the modern world without taking a huge quality of life hit.

Isolationism doesn't mean you can't do business. We've always done business with the world even in our most isolationist period. Only an idiot would want to go so isolationist that we become N. Korea like.

[SleestakSooner]

No, Alaska is not the solution. I think we should drill there but don't fool yourself into thinking it would be even remotely a cure to our energy needs.

Canadian mud is the future!

[jkjsooner]

Having said that, the economy wasn't really Clinton's fault either.

The President gets too much credit and blame for the economy. The tech bubble can't be blamed on Clinton but Greenspan sure could take some blame for it and he is absolutely to blame for our current problems. The guy just pushed bubbles from one place to another and we're all going to pay a huge price for it.

[SicEmBaylor]

The President gets too much credit and blame for the economy. The tech bubble can't be blamed on Clinton but Greenspan sure could take some blame for it and he is absolutely to blame for our current problems. The guy just pushed bubbles from one place to another and we're all going to pay a huge price for it.

Really, we're the ones to blame. The American Public demands that the government push those buttons to stave off economic corrections even if it means we'll hit bottom harder down the road. We're an extremely impulsive "live in the moment" society. If we didn't look to the damned government to take care of our problems and constantly tweak the economy like the man behind the curtain and realize that business cycles are normal then we'd be much better off.

[jkjsooner]

So Clinton gets "credit" for the tech boom but not the tech bust?

This is the problem. Dems want to credit him for the boom and republicans want to blame him for the loss. In reality, neither had much at all to do with Clinton.


If anyone is confused by my posts, I don't have a lot of love for either party and I think both are full of hypocrisy.

[SicEmBaylor]

The President gets too much credit and blame for the economy. The tech bubble can't be blamed on Clinton but Greenspan sure could take some blame for it and he is absolutely to blame for our current problems. The guy just pushed bubbles from one place to another and we're all going to pay a huge price for it.

Removing him was a mistake because Milosevic was one of the first lines of defense against Islam in Europe.

I'd rather Europeans take care of that problem themselves than expect us to do it for them when it becomes a real problem in a few decades.

[jkjsooner]

Isolationism doesn't mean you can't do business. We've always done business with the world even in our most isolationist period. Only an idiot would want to go so isolationist that we become N. Korea like.

No, what I mean is that we must actively protect our interests, even with the military... It's dirty work and can't be considered altruistic but I'm just not sure we have a choice unless we're willing to radically change our way of life.

I'm more liberal than conservative. However, I get sick of seeing the hippie types who constantly criticize us while they're sipping on their Starbucks and living a lifestyle most people around the world can only dream of. They have no idea what they would have to give up if the world really worked the way they want it to work.

[jkjsooner]

Really, we're the ones to blame. The American Public demands that the government push those buttons to stave off economic corrections even if it means we'll hit bottom harder down the road. We're an extremely impulsive "live in the moment" society. If we didn't look to the damned government to take care of our problems and constantly tweak the economy like the man behind the curtain and realize that business cycles are normal then we'd be much better off.

Agree

[SicEmBaylor]

No, what I mean is that we must actively protect our interests, even with the military... It's dirty work and can't be considered altruistic but I'm just not sure we have a choice unless we're willing to radically change our way of life.

I'm more liberal than conservative. However, I get sick of seeing the hippie types who constantly criticize us while they're sipping on their Starbucks and living a lifestyle most people around the world can only dream of. They have no idea what they would have to give up if the world really worked the way they want it to work.


That used to be my excuse as well back in the day when I was in favor of a pretty aggressive foreign policy. As a kid, I wanted to see the US military raise the flag over every European capital capped off with the red, white, and blue over the Kremlin. However, I grew up.

The only real national interest that we absolutely must protect are our sources of oil. War over oil is currently a legitimate reason to go to war which is why I want to get rid of our dependence on the stuff. You'd be hard pressed to find someone to the right of me, so I'm not saying this as some left-of-center anti-military/anti-America moron. I simply equate big government abroad with big government at home.

[jkjsooner]

Removing him was a mistake because Milosevic was one of the first lines of defense against Islam in Europe.

I'd rather Europeans take care of that problem themselves than expect us to do it for them when it becomes a real problem in a few decades.

That could be a problem with or without Milosevic. The Europeans are slowly one-by-one inviting the enemy to live with them. Don't get me wrong, I don't think most Muslims are the enemy but I do believe the situation will get very dangerous at some point in the future. There's just too many people who do not agree with our way of life or our freedoms and at some point that is going to cause them a lot of problems.

[jkjsooner]

That used to be my excuse as well back in the day when I was in favor of a pretty aggressive foreign policy. As a kid, I wanted to see the US military raise the flag over every European capital capped off with the red, white, and blue over the Kremlin. However, I grew up.

The only real national interest that we absolutely must protect are our sources of oil. War over oil is currently a legitimate reason to go to war which is why I want to get rid of our dependence on the stuff. You'd be hard pressed to find someone to the right of me, so I'm not saying this as some left-of-center anti-military/anti-America moron. I simply equate big government abroad with big government at home.

I used to think that we could stay out of international politics but then I grew up. I'm sure not implying that we should go raising the US flag over every European capital. ;-)

And, by the way, oil is about 90% of what I'm talking about.

[Chuck Bao]

No, what I mean is that we must actively protect our interests, even with the military... It's dirty work and can't be considered altruistic but I'm just not sure we have a choice unless we're willing to radically change our way of life.

I'm more liberal than conservative. However, I get sick of seeing the hippie types who constantly criticize us while they're sipping on their Starbucks and living a lifestyle most people around the world can only dream of. They have no idea what they would have to give up if the world really worked the way they want it to work.

There are many, many shades of gray between isolationism and unilateralism.

And, I'm wondering exactly what criteria and who decides our interests in other sovereign countries that would require US military action.

I agree that it takes too long for world opinion and a coalition building phase to stop most human atrocities. Typically only the shock value of only the most horrific nature will get consensus of the major world powers prepared to do something and then it is too late.

I'm not opposed to the US taking a leadership role or even taking pre-emptive role in protecting people from abuse from authoritarian regimes and genocide. Let the US always stand for democracy and basic human rights and freedom.

The key issue is whether US intelligence is right and public statements by a US administration turn out to be correct. There should never be any “oopsy daisies”.

The Bush administration has done irreparable harm to the US image abroad, raising suspicions of intent of either grabbing for natural resources or protecting corporate interests.

Stories about the massive spy surveillance system on the internet, illegal torture and secret internment camps throughout the world (one of which was in Thailand) are not helping that image. It is having the reverse effect in fact, effectively encouraging some developing countries to stage military coups for the sake of “national security” or spy on their own people or expect limited response from the international community to human rights abuses in their own secret internment camps and torture of civilians.

The high road somehow has been lost under the current administration. I think the eight years under the Slick Willy administration, even with its obvious shortcomings, far better served the American people than the current Bush administration.

[Chuck Bao]

That used to be my excuse as well back in the day when I was in favor of a pretty aggressive foreign policy. As a kid, I wanted to see the US military raise the flag over every European capital capped off with the red, white, and blue over the Kremlin. However, I grew up.

I'm afraid that too many still have such a comic book approach to foreign policy.

[VeeJay]

The high road somehow has been lost under the current administration. I think the eight years under the Slick Willy administration, even with its obvious shortcomings, far better served the American people than the current Bush administration.

Good comments. However, regarding the "high road" - the road wasn't all that high when Shrub took office. Regarding the shortcomings, there are 3500 families of victims of 9/11 who may not fully agree. We could have done more; Clinton was asleep at the wheel regarding the towelheads.

Back to my original post, I am not the only one who wants Bill to STFU. This is a first in that a former president has a spouse running for his old job. Clinton, on the one hand, wants his legacy cemented as a world peacenik, and a statesman for the United States. The Clinton Foundation is doing good things in bringing a halt to diseases, famine, and AIDS. That is his post-presidency shining star.

Why must he tear down any goodwill he's created for himself by becoming little more than a shrill partisan bullhorn? Even Ted Kennedy smells something rotten:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/96385