JustinM Posted November 7, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 144 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,512 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 625 Days Won: 10 Joined: 04/11/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 10/07/1979 Share Posted November 7, 2007 Appeasement is an abysmal failure, but yet you still support it. Taxing a country near to death was an abysmal failure, unfortunately we had to suffer the fall-out after the Clinton Administration left the White House. I don't hate Bill Clinton, I just don't think he's as great as all his faithful followers believe he is. Anytime someone puts Bill Clinton on the pedestal, as "The Greatest and Most Popular US President ever, I enjoy knocking that pedestal down, because the simple fact is, he wasn't that great. He ignored many major problems during his Presidency and we as a nation have suffered greatly because of his negligence. You say President Bush completely ignored terrorism until September 11, 2001. Uh, did you forget what year the President was sworn into Office? January 20, 2001. He was in office 7 months 22 days when we were attacked by muslim terrorists. I think, you are being very disingenuous and dishonest when you claim that President Bush completely ignored terrorism prior to 9-11, yet have nothing but praise for a man that ignored it for 8 years. Come on, you are being intellectually dishonest with us and aren't fooling anyone by that. Don't get me started on Bill Clinton's popularity either. President Bush had a 90% approval rate, so he was the most popular and most supported President in U.S. history. I can spin just like you bud. Let's see the peak of Clinton's popularity, that you so loudly proclaim: 34% lowest, 65% highest. At his peak, he was still 25% less than President Bush's peak. But, at his lowest, he was only 10% higher than Bush's lowest rating. 49.5 mean support for President Clinton 57% mean support for President Bush. Tell me again, who was most popular throughout his Presidency? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted November 7, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 I bet your life won't be one bit different no matter which party should win next year. Then why are you pushing so hard for the liberals to win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat8585 Posted November 7, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 1,360 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 7,866 Content Per Day: 1.23 Reputation: 26 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/22/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/18/1946 Author Share Posted November 7, 2007 Luckily only about 25% of the American people agree with you. How do you know this? Do you have proof? The Reagan years with the cold war were hardly peaceful. Well, for one thing, Reagan didn't start the cold war, and you certainly don't ever see liberals or the press giving him any credit for ending it. As to terrorism, terrorism incidents worldwide are higher today than they were in the Clinton years, and I think that most people would agree that Bush completely ignored terrorism until 9/11. See Jason's post above. As to Somalia, that started under Bush Sr. In Kosovo, not a single American was killed. You may hate Clinton, but 70% of the American people like him a lot. As to Hillary, you may as well get used to it, because I would lay money on a Democrat winning the White house next year by a solid margin. Those identifying themselves as Democrats are now at 50% compared with 35% of Americans identifying themselves as Republican. They pendulum has swung the other way. Not so fast. A lot of us, me included, don't call ourselves Republicans any more because we are fed up with things like open borders, but that doesn't mean we are Dems, or will ever vote Dem. During the Clinton years median income went up every single year, the poverty rate went down every single year, we were at full employment, and by every statistical measure we were doing better than we are even today. In fact, median income is lower today adjusted for inflation than it was the day Clinton left office. Sounds like it came straight out of the Democrat playbook. Conservatism in its present form is an abysmal failure and until the Republican Party returns to a more Eisenhower style conservatism, they better get used to losing. Well, at least our leaders been served notice, and are waking up. More than I can say for lib leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingwalker Posted November 7, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 970 Content Per Day: 0.14 Reputation: 11 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/20/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted November 7, 2007 I think people just want Bill Clinton back in office, and this is the closest they can get. People are hoping the Clinton economy of the 90's will come back if she gets elected. So, which is it....Mrs President, or Madam President? Better start practicing now, because unless it's revealed that she's really a space alien with a tiny tail and an eye on the back of her head, It looks like she's going to become the next Pres. Ummm who was president that set up the economy that Bill so non-chalanty walked into? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forrestkc Posted November 8, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 114 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,015 Content Per Day: 0.59 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 1 Joined: 12/15/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2007 I think people just want Bill Clinton back in office, and this is the closest they can get. People are hoping the Clinton economy of the 90's will come back if she gets elected. So, which is it....Mrs President, or Madam President? Better start practicing now, because unless it's revealed that she's really a space alien with a tiny tail and an eye on the back of her head, It looks like she's going to become the next Pres. Ummm who was president that set up the economy that Bill so non-chalanty walked into? Yeah, the Reagan economic plan was to leave office adding trillions to the national debt, achieving the worst decade of real private sector GDP growth since the 30s, and bringing about a recession in the early nineties with unemployment reaching nearly 10%.......and then, after all that, a Democrat being elected that made a complete departure from the Reagan era economic policies, experiencing a huge economic boom. Yeah, it was all Reagan's idea. The fact is even Alan Greenspan credits the economic boom of the nineties to the Clinton Administration's economic policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted November 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 8, 2007 I think people just want Bill Clinton back in office, and this is the closest they can get. People are hoping the Clinton economy of the 90's will come back if she gets elected. So, which is it....Mrs President, or Madam President? Better start practicing now, because unless it's revealed that she's really a space alien with a tiny tail and an eye on the back of her head, It looks like she's going to become the next Pres. Ummm who was president that set up the economy that Bill so non-chalanty walked into? Yeah, the Reagan economic plan was to leave office adding trillions to the national debt, achieving the worst decade of real private sector GDP growth since the 30s, and bringing about a recession in the early nineties with unemployment reaching nearly 10%.......and then, after all that, a Democrat being elected that made a complete departure from the Reagan era economic policies, experiencing a huge economic boom. Yeah, it was all Reagan's idea. The fact is even Alan Greenspan credits the economic boom of the nineties to the Clinton Administration's economic policies. Yeah...Reaganomics, the trickle-down theory? Not so good for most people, especially if you didn't have much money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kari21 Posted November 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 140 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 1,846 Content Per Day: 0.28 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/04/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/05/1987 Share Posted November 8, 2007 People put up with so much from Clinton because the economy was good. He was one of the most immoral Presidents we've ever had, and came a hair's breath away from getting impeached! But hey, the love of money covers up a lot of indiscretion. Peace, forrestkc? But at what price? If Bill had been more agressive in going after Bin Laden, we may not have had a 9-11 tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnotherTraveler Posted November 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 80 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,595 Content Per Day: 0.22 Reputation: 10 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/12/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted November 8, 2007 Feminist Says Hillary Clinton Plays the Victim Hillary is a victim, of being Hillary. Think of how hard it would be to just deal with being Hillary every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgesbluegirl Posted November 8, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,234 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/10/1987 Share Posted November 8, 2007 People put up with so much from Clinton because the economy was good. He was one of the most immoral Presidents we've ever had, and came a hair's breath away from getting impeached! But hey, the love of money covers up a lot of indiscretion. Peace, forrestkc? But at what price? If Bill had been more agressive in going after Bin Laden, we may not have had a 9-11 tragedy. Oh, come on. That attempt at impeachment was a joke. And an adulterer Clinton might have been, but a) he still oversaw generally good policy as a president (I'll leave the Bin Laden question to the side) and b) we've had presidents who owned SLAVES. And presidents who openly spoke against women being able to vote or work. And presidents who led us into/kept us in unjust wars that resulted in astronomical numbers of American soldiers killed, not to mention innocent citizens of other countries. So yeah, Clinton (like all too many politicians, it seems) fooled around, and honestly I respect Hillary a little less for sticking with him through ALL of it, and never once leaving to take some time and think about what she wanted and what she was getting from her marriage (...political gain...). But in the scheme of things, in the scheme of immorality? FAR. Worse. Things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LadyC Posted November 8, 2007 Share Posted November 8, 2007 why is this turning into a debate about whether bill was a good president? we know he wasn't. a leader should be someone of character and strength, not someone who is a sexual predator, who makes a mockery of the legal system, and who would sell out his grandmother to the highest bidder. we all know that clinton is a womanizing predator who has sought to destroy the lives of the women who dared come forward, and we know that he, as an attorney and as a president, committed purjury. the question is, is hillary fit to lead our country? IMO, the answer is a resounding no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts