reasons clintons presidency was so bad
- Thread starter noone
- Start date
Silver Bullet
New member
Juanita Broaddrick
It's really funny how some conservatives haven't updated their arguments since the 1980s. ACLU and NAMBLA, woooo, hot topic there, all over today's headlines (speaking of which, Merry Fitz-mas everybody).
And "deal with it," which I've heard time and again, usually implies "put up and shut up." Funny, I don't see too many conservatives doing that if the situation was reversed.
To keep this at least somewhat gun-related, I'll concede that the 1994 AWB was bad legislation. How's that?
And "deal with it," which I've heard time and again, usually implies "put up and shut up." Funny, I don't see too many conservatives doing that if the situation was reversed.
To keep this at least somewhat gun-related, I'll concede that the 1994 AWB was bad legislation. How's that?
"Isnt separation of Church from State a major part of the tenents of the democratic system?"
If you can find the phrase "separation from church and state" in either the Constitution or the BOR, please point to it.
Bill Clinton has always been a master politician, probably one of the best in the last 100 years.
As a Master Politician, though, he didn't go where his principles led him, but rather to where the votes and the poll numbers led him.
When he saw that Republicans were gaining ground on issues, such as welfare reform, he adopted those issues as his own.
With regard to gun rights, he misread the polls, and didn't listen to members of his own party who advised against the 1994 AW Ban. He admits as much in his biography, an admission I give him credit for.
The tragedy of Bill Clinton is that he squandered eight years in office--eight years during which he could have accomplished very much, regardless of whether folks here would agree with what he might have done--and instead just pretty much coasted on a good economy.
As for the sex scandals, there's a couple of ways to look at them. JFK was a know philanderer, and the press kept that to themselves. However, he was not known to be what we would now term a "sexual predator," which is precisely what these women claimed.
When JFK was in office, Patricia Ireland and NOW didn't exist. The fact that NOW existed during the Clinton years, and they turned a blind eye to the charges, speaks volumes to their committment to the rights of all women.
Much--if not most--of politics is hypocrisy. With regard to the sex scandals, the hypocrisy lies with the fact that NOW just looked away, and for purely partisan reasons. Juanita Broderick made a very credible charge that Clinton had raped her. Meanwhile, a guy at Miller Brewing in Milwaukee was fired because he had a photo of his wife in a swimsuit on his desk. NOW went after the Miller employee, but not Clinton.
Today, "Scooter" Libby is facing charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the very same charges that Clinton faced.
Libby will be punished.
If you can find the phrase "separation from church and state" in either the Constitution or the BOR, please point to it.
Bill Clinton has always been a master politician, probably one of the best in the last 100 years.
As a Master Politician, though, he didn't go where his principles led him, but rather to where the votes and the poll numbers led him.
When he saw that Republicans were gaining ground on issues, such as welfare reform, he adopted those issues as his own.
With regard to gun rights, he misread the polls, and didn't listen to members of his own party who advised against the 1994 AW Ban. He admits as much in his biography, an admission I give him credit for.
The tragedy of Bill Clinton is that he squandered eight years in office--eight years during which he could have accomplished very much, regardless of whether folks here would agree with what he might have done--and instead just pretty much coasted on a good economy.
As for the sex scandals, there's a couple of ways to look at them. JFK was a know philanderer, and the press kept that to themselves. However, he was not known to be what we would now term a "sexual predator," which is precisely what these women claimed.
When JFK was in office, Patricia Ireland and NOW didn't exist. The fact that NOW existed during the Clinton years, and they turned a blind eye to the charges, speaks volumes to their committment to the rights of all women.
Much--if not most--of politics is hypocrisy. With regard to the sex scandals, the hypocrisy lies with the fact that NOW just looked away, and for purely partisan reasons. Juanita Broderick made a very credible charge that Clinton had raped her. Meanwhile, a guy at Miller Brewing in Milwaukee was fired because he had a photo of his wife in a swimsuit on his desk. NOW went after the Miller employee, but not Clinton.
Today, "Scooter" Libby is facing charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, the very same charges that Clinton faced.
Libby will be punished.
and sexual consent to be given to 12 year olds kennybs plbg
New member
Wouldn't it be easier to name the things that Clinton accomplished while in office his eight years. I'll start it off with Midnight Basketball and the next guy can finish it off with the other one.
kenny b
kenny b
kennybs plbg
New member
Guess not, maybe thats it. Can anyone honestly think of another.
kenny b
kenny b
Jammer Six
New member
Just so we're clear, those aren't separate documents.
If they were, the 2nd amendment wouldn't be a constitutional right.
noone
I am totally satisfied that you had no intention of seriously looking at our reasons for despising Clinton...
I know that you will not look honestly at the comparisons of Bosnia v Iraq.
I know that you either cannot, or you refuse to, see any common ground on which we can mutually view the Clintons.
I also know that you cannot begin to understand the importance of honesty or morallity in the nations leaders... regardless their names and political party.
I know that when I say that the Clintons openly, and rudely, "dissed" the Secret Service and the Military Representatives in the White House, you will applaud, rather than deride them.
AND they had so little respect for National Security that the President of the United States actually LOST the "nuclear football" on at least one occasion.
AND I could care less what "Slick Willey" does to, or with, a consenting intern named Monica...
I am pissed because he had so little respect for the Office of the Presidency, and that he did not revere anything that is considered meaningful to, or traditionally loved, by the people of these United States.
I also know that you will not understand a damned thing I just said.
I am totally satisfied that you had no intention of seriously looking at our reasons for despising Clinton...
I know that you will not look honestly at the comparisons of Bosnia v Iraq.
I know that you either cannot, or you refuse to, see any common ground on which we can mutually view the Clintons.
I also know that you cannot begin to understand the importance of honesty or morallity in the nations leaders... regardless their names and political party.
I know that when I say that the Clintons openly, and rudely, "dissed" the Secret Service and the Military Representatives in the White House, you will applaud, rather than deride them.
AND they had so little respect for National Security that the President of the United States actually LOST the "nuclear football" on at least one occasion.
AND I could care less what "Slick Willey" does to, or with, a consenting intern named Monica...
I am pissed because he had so little respect for the Office of the Presidency, and that he did not revere anything that is considered meaningful to, or traditionally loved, by the people of these United States.
I also know that you will not understand a damned thing I just said.
Last edited:
I can definatley understand the part of disliking him because of his stance on firearms. I somewhat agree now that I look back before I was even legally allowed to own.
What Clinton did have is the ability to talk without making himself look like an idiot. He kept the friendships close and family like with other countries. Bush pretty much took a dump on that.
Though I believe the war in IRAQ is not justified I do not believe we should pull out now. It would be the stupidest move anyone can make and thank god Bush isnt that stupid.
Its easy to understand the hate to Clinton some people here hold. After all he wasn't relegious enough for some people here and he had an anti attitude. I believe most people here hold a grudge against him only due to the fact of his stance on firearms and relegion.
As for the whole monica incident I guarantee you at least 70% of the guys on this forum have cheated at leat once on their wives or girlfriends. No need to be hypocrites.
If we keep electing presidents based on relegion (which played a big part in 04 elections) then our country is in some deep crap. Relegion is the root of all problems.
What Clinton did have is the ability to talk without making himself look like an idiot. He kept the friendships close and family like with other countries. Bush pretty much took a dump on that.
Though I believe the war in IRAQ is not justified I do not believe we should pull out now. It would be the stupidest move anyone can make and thank god Bush isnt that stupid.
Its easy to understand the hate to Clinton some people here hold. After all he wasn't relegious enough for some people here and he had an anti attitude. I believe most people here hold a grudge against him only due to the fact of his stance on firearms and relegion.
As for the whole monica incident I guarantee you at least 70% of the guys on this forum have cheated at leat once on their wives or girlfriends. No need to be hypocrites.
If we keep electing presidents based on relegion (which played a big part in 04 elections) then our country is in some deep crap. Relegion is the root of all problems.
Like there’s no chance that the Secular state of Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalist cohabitate? They both think we’re Saten. How about that as a nice point of departure for them car-pooling? I wish there was a country called al-qaedia that we could have invaded, but there wasn’t [Saddam was] the only one who had a home address.
And If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.
~Urkslaven~
And If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," sue your school district for allowing you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the education you deserve.
~Urkslaven~
Urkslaven,
If your directing that comment to me I am in no way Anti-war nor am I anti-troop.
Once again you prove relegion is the root of problems by stating they think were satan.
I will beat someone to the groud before I allow them to label me as anti-war anti-troops. So if that was directed towards me id highly suggest you watch your words. I love my country just as much if not more then anyone on this forum. Im not threatening you but I have my american pride and I wont allow anyone not even another american to spit all over it.
If a gang organization attacked the UK and their location is untraceable does that mean they have to attack Bush because they have his address?
Honestly the gang problems here in the US are far more of a terrorist threat then Al-Queida.
If your directing that comment to me I am in no way Anti-war nor am I anti-troop.
Once again you prove relegion is the root of problems by stating they think were satan.
I will beat someone to the groud before I allow them to label me as anti-war anti-troops. So if that was directed towards me id highly suggest you watch your words. I love my country just as much if not more then anyone on this forum. Im not threatening you but I have my american pride and I wont allow anyone not even another american to spit all over it.
If a gang organization attacked the UK and their location is untraceable does that mean they have to attack Bush because they have his address?
Honestly the gang problems here in the US are far more of a terrorist threat then Al-Queida.
Lets face it...
Lets face it in 1904 we elected a great man president (T. Roosevelt). It took the American people 76 years to elect another great man president (R. Reagan). 100 years from today neither Clinton nor Bush will be remembered as anything but mediocre presidents. Why are we surprised when we elect mediocre men to office we get mediocre public officials? Who was better Clinton or Bush...... cmon thats like asking what was better the gremlin or the pinto?
ericn
Lets face it in 1904 we elected a great man president (T. Roosevelt). It took the American people 76 years to elect another great man president (R. Reagan). 100 years from today neither Clinton nor Bush will be remembered as anything but mediocre presidents. Why are we surprised when we elect mediocre men to office we get mediocre public officials? Who was better Clinton or Bush...... cmon thats like asking what was better the gremlin or the pinto?
ericn
This is a hot topic whose end will likely come because of the lack of civility. There is a lot of good discussion here so let us try to keep it open as long as possible by being respectful, and nice despite our opinions, and perhaps we can all learn from one another.
I am not sure how the "seperation of church, and state came into the subject, but lets clear up that point. This country does not force you to accept any religion as King George did. There is your seperation. It does not imply that the government of the US should not be made up of religous men. This country has come further, and rose to more power, in a shorter amount of time than any other nation on earth. Why? Becasue it was born of religous priniciples, and we follow a different moral compass. To jump around and say that those principles now have no place in our courthouse houses, and federal government is what is derailing the US, not the fact that they exist. There existances, while objectionable to some, are the very reason that the government does not force you to join a state ordained church, and that in itself is the seperation of church, and state. The one constant in our history is that we have continued to move toward being more liberal on all fronts, and yet we lay all of our problems at the feet of religon. That just doesn't add up.
I agree with the fact that Bill Clinton could have accomplished so much because he was a master politician, and yet he squandered 8 years away. He sold public lands (National Park Lands) to private industry. These were not his to sell, they belonged to our children, and our childrens, childrens. But lets not jump up, and say that Ronald Regan was the greatest president elected since Rosevelt either. Remember that Nafta, and trickle down economics was originated by these Republicans. I have now watched more jobs go over seas than any other time in history. I am also still waiting for the economics to trickle down to me. Ronald Regan was also a master politician. He took advantange of the political winds when he stood up and made his famous speech "Tear down this wall". He didn't orchestrate it, he only led the band wagon.
In the 30's, 40's, and 50's when we the greatest goods producing country on earth we were at the top of our game. We have now sold ourselves to foriegn interest, and I am not sure there is any road back. But if there is, and if someone can show it to me, I could care less if they are Republican, Democrat, or a Giant Green Giraffe.
Again I detest the things that both repulicans, and democrats have have done. I detest the opportunities they have waisted. I am appalled after all the great things this nation has accomplished that we are still like chiuldren on the school playground picking teams, and sides, just to do battle in the political arena.
I am not sure how the "seperation of church, and state came into the subject, but lets clear up that point. This country does not force you to accept any religion as King George did. There is your seperation. It does not imply that the government of the US should not be made up of religous men. This country has come further, and rose to more power, in a shorter amount of time than any other nation on earth. Why? Becasue it was born of religous priniciples, and we follow a different moral compass. To jump around and say that those principles now have no place in our courthouse houses, and federal government is what is derailing the US, not the fact that they exist. There existances, while objectionable to some, are the very reason that the government does not force you to join a state ordained church, and that in itself is the seperation of church, and state. The one constant in our history is that we have continued to move toward being more liberal on all fronts, and yet we lay all of our problems at the feet of religon. That just doesn't add up.
I agree with the fact that Bill Clinton could have accomplished so much because he was a master politician, and yet he squandered 8 years away. He sold public lands (National Park Lands) to private industry. These were not his to sell, they belonged to our children, and our childrens, childrens. But lets not jump up, and say that Ronald Regan was the greatest president elected since Rosevelt either. Remember that Nafta, and trickle down economics was originated by these Republicans. I have now watched more jobs go over seas than any other time in history. I am also still waiting for the economics to trickle down to me. Ronald Regan was also a master politician. He took advantange of the political winds when he stood up and made his famous speech "Tear down this wall". He didn't orchestrate it, he only led the band wagon.
In the 30's, 40's, and 50's when we the greatest goods producing country on earth we were at the top of our game. We have now sold ourselves to foriegn interest, and I am not sure there is any road back. But if there is, and if someone can show it to me, I could care less if they are Republican, Democrat, or a Giant Green Giraffe.
Again I detest the things that both repulicans, and democrats have have done. I detest the opportunities they have waisted. I am appalled after all the great things this nation has accomplished that we are still like chiuldren on the school playground picking teams, and sides, just to do battle in the political arena.
It's enough to know that Clinton is a Liberal and Bush is somewhat more conservative than Clinton.
I don't know that I'd want either for a neighbor but I think at least Bush would return the stuff he borrowed from me without repeated prompting.
And I don't think I'd have to hide my daughters from him either.
I don't know that I'd want either for a neighbor but I think at least Bush would return the stuff he borrowed from me without repeated prompting.
And I don't think I'd have to hide my daughters from him either.
pointer
WHERE THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF KNOWING HOW I FEEL OR BELIEVE?
did the caps help? WHY THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH(by people i mean the ones who are making false statements)?
I almost dont wanna keep this going anymore. look at my post I always answer everyones post with the way I fell. then you guys go on and put words in my mouth.
the only point you seem to make in your post POINTER is that you personally knew bill clinton when he was in office. And you personally saw him dis military service members.
where have I in my posts said i bow down to bill, and worship him?......huh still waiting. I asked a serious question.
you talk about disrespecting the office of president? the next presidents to come to office have no respect from most foreign leaders off the bat. if you look at polls currently most here dont respect the current pres.
as for not knowing what you just said? I know that your intelligence might be lower then normal for making remarks like that after what i have wrote.
WHERE THE HELL DO YOU GET OFF KNOWING HOW I FEEL OR BELIEVE?
did the caps help? WHY THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE KEEP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH(by people i mean the ones who are making false statements)?
I almost dont wanna keep this going anymore. look at my post I always answer everyones post with the way I fell. then you guys go on and put words in my mouth.
the only point you seem to make in your post POINTER is that you personally knew bill clinton when he was in office. And you personally saw him dis military service members.
where have I in my posts said i bow down to bill, and worship him?......huh still waiting. I asked a serious question.
you talk about disrespecting the office of president? the next presidents to come to office have no respect from most foreign leaders off the bat. if you look at polls currently most here dont respect the current pres.
as for not knowing what you just said? I know that your intelligence might be lower then normal for making remarks like that after what i have wrote.
andrewtb: I agree with some of what you say.
urkslave: where in this post did anyone say their anti-war slogan was "no war for oil". could you point it out to me please?
as for islamic fundamentalists and iraq's banding together. how much of that was going on before the war? please share.
alot of people myself included wish that we would of taken care of afgh. first(not condoning war with iraq here). when the war in iraq started it took need supplies and personnel away from afgh. do you think this made sense? if you did you want ubl to walk around free?
bravo25: agree with you on some points also.
urkslave: where in this post did anyone say their anti-war slogan was "no war for oil". could you point it out to me please?
as for islamic fundamentalists and iraq's banding together. how much of that was going on before the war? please share.
alot of people myself included wish that we would of taken care of afgh. first(not condoning war with iraq here). when the war in iraq started it took need supplies and personnel away from afgh. do you think this made sense? if you did you want ubl to walk around free?
bravo25: agree with you on some points also.