reasons clintons presidency was so bad

N

noone

New member
everytime I read a thread, or make a comment on bush i seem to get the same reply along these lines. "clinton sucks", "at least hes not as bad as clinton", you know or some other stupid statement with clintons name in it. please educate me on the things he did wrong for my own knowledge.

you can leave out he got a bj in office and lied about it. that was personall and didnt deserve to dragged into the public. it definetly didnt need to waste 6 months and almost 7 million dollars.
 
Most of the Clinton scandals weren't so much about the subject at hand (Whitewater, Monica, etc), but the coverrup. I would think that, with Hillary having served on the Senate committee investigating Watergate, she would have known better.

As for things that Clinton did that I found objectionable: the 1994 AW ban, which he fought hard for; the Brady law, which he also fought for; allowing Loral Corp to sell missile technology to the Chinese over the objections of the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA; failing to adequately respond to the first World Trade Center attack; handing out pardons to people like Marc Rich at the end of his term; accepting campaign donations from foreign donors; and a whole slew of other things.

From the outset, I had the impression that he was a man who could not be trusted.
 
where to start with allowing china to buy those super computers was'nt very good.Letting his wife to fire everyone in the travel office was nice to.Not taking out bin laden when they had the chance was cosiderate. He seemed like a nice guy at the time.How about obstruction of justice thats a nice touch Was'nt he the one that did'nt know the defintion of the word IS or was it the word IF.Thats just off the top of my head This is going to be a long thread i think
 
noone, I'm glad I'm not the only liberal here, but talk about painting a target on your back! :eek: :D

It never ceases to amaze me that the conservatives are willing to crucify Clinton over the stain on Monica's dress, but are more than willing to give Bush a pass on his trumped-up reasons for invading Iraq. I think a lot of it is spoiled grapes from when Clinton won his two elections.

I also find it amazing that so many conservatives are crying foul over their sudden epiphany that the current administration doesn't really have an interest in championing their values. We told you guys this back in 2000, but hey, we're liberals, why bother listening to us.

Furthermore, it amazes me that in the past two+ decades, conservatives and Republicans largely have dominated the political scene in this country, yet never seem happy with that fact. Seriously, should we still be debating creationism in this country? Boy, that vast left-wing conspiracy must be really effective ... I mean, we meant to lose all those elections, it's part of our master plan. :barf:
 
well i started this thread because of the fact that everyone on here seems to lick bush's boots. I personally feel he is not doing so good of a job. everytime i post to this affect, i get all that clinton garbage. evern though i have never brought up his name first, or said that I thought he did a good job or whatever.

you guys dont like arms sales? well good thing our country is the top arms supplier by a long shot. man it sucks that that is clintons fault. Im sure it doesnt go on now that bush is president. and isnt it ironic all you 2nd crusaders who dont want other countries to have arms.

as for dealing with bin laden when he had the chance? they have proven that the bin laden was a lie and the source it came from was totally untrustable.

oh and good thing bush is taking care of him now.

is the campaign donation thing true? I have no time to research that one. but if you look in todays headlines, bushs campaign funds are not so squeky clean.
 
I don't think Clinton's affair was "his personal business". That is what the media would have us believe, but the way I remember it, Paula Jones took Clinton to court over sexual harassment and he denied the allegations. Since it was her word against his, there was a need to see if Clinton had any past behavior that would give credit to the allegations. And there were women who came forward, but Clinton denied and denied and denied and when it came to Lewinsky he came on TV just to deny, he got special air time just to come on TV and shake his finger at the nation and say "I did not have sexual relations with that woman". But there was physical evidence, and he was finally busted, had to pay off Paula, and he was impeached, and isn't even fit to practice law in Arkansas. That's how I remember it. I believe what it came down to was that Bill Clinton would expose himself to women and if they didn't go for it he would say "I'm Governor/President and if you are smart you will not make an incident out of this".

And there was the incident over the federal gun free school zone law being ruled unconstitutional, so Clinton asked Reno how they could circumvent the Constitution, and Reno said they should rewrite the law to only apply to guns that traveled in interstate commerce ... and I believe they also increased the zone around each school by a hundred fold.

And there was Clinton's declaration that if the Constitutional process did not get him what he wanted then he would just rule by executive order.
 
Umm, I'm still having trouble with the comparison of allegations of sexual harrassment versus the death of 2000 American soldiers and God only knows how many Iraqis. How was the former worse than the latter again?

And gee, if the Republicans weren't so obstructionist during the Clinton administration, then maybe he wouldn't have made that remark. That's right, it's only bad when the Democrats are obstructionist, silly me.

Clinton may have said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman on national TV", but Bush also said that the Iraqis had weapons of mass destruction on national TV as well.
 
You're kidding, right? Your actually saying that putting computer systems for Nukes in the hands of Communist China is a good thing. And as for the small arms business pro Second Amendment folks seem to want law abiding citizens to have guns.

Most conservatives problems with Clinton, stem from NOT just what he did wrong, but for getting credit for things that he did not deserve. The economy is a perfect example of this, because of the Dot Com boom. But I guess that does count for him, because Al Gore created the internet, right:rolleyes:

Frankly the biggest reason that Bush is letting conservatives down now, is because he is not being conservative ENOUGH.
 
Clinton DID have sexual relations with that woman and he knew it yet he denied it. Bush actually believed that there were weapons of mass destruction. I've had it with this stupid thread ... I think somebody has seen too many Mikey Moore movies.
 
waco.jpg


No comment needed.
 
where did i say i want china to have nukes?

gore:
In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

According to Vincent Cerf, a senior vice president with MCI Worldcom who's been called the Father of the Internet, "The Internet would not be where it is in the United States without the strong support given to it and related research areas by the Vice President in his current role and in his earlier role as Senator."

The inventor of the Mosaic Browser, Marc Andreesen, credits Gore with making his work possible. He received a federal grant through Gore's High Performance Computing Act. The University of Pennsylvania's Dave Ferber says that without Gore the Internet "would not be where it is today."

Joseph E. Traub, a computer science professor at Columbia University, claims that Gore "was perhaps the first political leader to grasp the importance of networking the country. Could we perhaps see an end to cheap shots from politicians and pundits about inventing the Internet?"
 
micro: should i put pics of iraqi children with their limbs missing, or caskets coming home up here? or people on rooftops not getting help in n.o.?

no it would be in bad taste. you are just doing what you bush supporters always cry about. I dont remember clinton shooting anyone in that compound, nor do i recall it being bushs fault that relief took so long to get to louisiana.
 
The Clinton Presidency was bad because he signed an executive order SO I CAN'T HAVE CHEAP WOLF 7,62x25. Bastard.
 
Hugh, bye-bye. I guess Bush can't be held responsible, it all was somebody else's fault, he of course had absolutely no hand in sending American troops into Iraq. I thought conservatives were big on personal responsibility? And yes, I get all of my opinions from Mikey Moore. He's a deity among our circles, didn't you know? Just as reliable as O'Reilly. :barf:

Microbalrog, yes, explanation is needed. I know that's Waco in your picture, and yes, Waco wasn't exactly the brightest moment in the Clinton presidency. However, it still pales by comparison with the transgressions of the current administration. Again, 2000 American soldiers, etc., etc.
 
whats Waco got to do with Clinton?

Janet Reno maybe..or the FBI or BATF...

Or maybe it had to do with a bunch of religous fanatics who were unlawfully holed up in thier paramilitary compound and got what was coming to them?

Yeah Ive said it...I have no sympathy whatsoever for the law breakers at Waco..none.

To many people are concerned about a president having an affair...Maybe he got caught..but theres been ongoing history of extra maritial affairs with those who occupy the white house... isnt somebodies personal business jsut that? Thier personal business?

I think people should be more concerned about war and other such serious issues and less concerned about wet cigars.... cause I dont know about you..but wet cigars havent killed anybody I know about.
 
I am neither liberal, or conseravative. I don't adhere to labels very well. I also can't abide a President obstructing justice (Clinton), or one that pushed for gun control (Clinton), or one that signed in NAFTA (Clinton), although he didn't start it.
Neither can I tolerate a President who lies to kill 2000 troops. (Bush) He should have stayed in Afghanistan. Someone with that much intel knows there were no WMD's. I won't tolerate a President who won't take responsability (Bush), everything under his administration is always someone elses fault. As governor he allowed an execution of a woman who would have served a greater purpose serving life in prison, just to make a statement.
Lets not forget that he (Bush) was also going to sign the AWB if it came to his desk.

Clinton did nothing about Osama, and Bush walked away from it, turning it over to the same people that use to work for Bin Laden. But then Bush has made it a point to sell the whole works as a "war on terror". You can't fight a war on terror. Look at the IRA. If it was truley a war on terror, to secure America, why are the borders still wide open.

I say we get off from this whole "liberal, conservative, right wing, left wing, democrat, republican" thing, and get the problems fixed.

Go ahead, and flame on. Lately I have realised that so many here are willing to fight so hard against being PC when it comes to fireams, but man they sure hold it high when it doesn't fit their saddle.
 
question for noone

Noone,
Are you blaming Bush for N.O. people being stranded on their roofs? You don't think their mayor may have dropped the ball?

Do you think the Dems will let you keep your guns? I remember Slick Willie, after the Brady law passed, saying it was a start! Wonder what he meant?
 
Bravo25, well said in many ways. Polarization does nobody any real good, and a truly bipartisan administration could accomplish much and gain my respect if indeed it was truly bipartisan.

I think the problem for many of us who go by the moniker "liberal," whether we wanted it or not, is that the outspoken elements of the conservative right all too frequently paint us with the broad stroke of the brush, so to speak. Therefore, all liberals (or Democrats, even though the two are far from interchangeable) become godless, unpatriotic babykillers intent on the destruction of any and all personal freedoms. This goes both ways too: many liberals view their conservative brethren as Bible-thumping, holier-than-thou inbreeds intent on making the world 'merican.

I get very tired of the hypocrisy on both sides and try to combat it when I encounter it. However, the left takes an awful drubbing on this website, so it's nice to see it defended for a change.

noone, who are you accusing of having sense? Careful where you point that. :-)

Ah, to be stuck at home with the flu on a Friday night, now I see what I'm missing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top