Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Clinton is a terrible choice because...<< A: She has a phony/bologna nature about herself which comes down to: Lying! B: From the beginning .... She's given off many hints to being just as sneaky as Bush when it comes to National Security and the Military. C: She will do ANYTHING to be elected such as NEGATIVE campaigning against Obama! As soon as she started that, I developed a hatred to her! I'm oc-dean, and I approve of this post! OH - "The commander and chief test"? Test? So she just decided to create this test out of thin air?????????? To hell with her!
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It seems disingenuous for republicans to criticize democrats for failing to get bin laden. Not only has their candidate failed, but he's actually business partners with bin laden's family.<< Yup. And if Clinton had gone after bin Laden more aggressively with military action, I'm sure it would've been roundly supported by Republicans. Because they gave Bill so much of their support. Cause that's just how they are.
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Clniton undermined his own Presidency. He has no one to blame but himself for that.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Clinton undermined his own Presidency. He has no one to blame but himself for that.<< Only to those people that care more about sex than leadership and prosperity. I know I'm shocked that a man would lie about having an affair. I certainly don't condone it, but it isn't any of my business, and it didn't affect his leadership until everyone else made it their business.
Originally Posted By planodisney In any other profession, a company exec., doing what Clinton did with a company intern,"very young", would be soundly reprimanded at the VERY LEAST. It was slimy and did say something about the mans character. Our character, who we realy are when noone is watching, doesnt exist in some vacuum. If we lack real character, it isnt just in one area, we lack character and convictions in every aspect of our life. This is what angered many people about the excuse making of supporters.
Originally Posted By planodisney Oh, and i dont believe he did any of what he did because he was a Democrat, it was because he is a man with no self control and lacks DEEP character.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>and it didn't affect his leadership until everyone else made it their business.<< Thank you! While this discussion is about Hillary ... Bill had our country in better shape in his tenure. Can't say the same for George Deficit Bush!
Originally Posted By planodisney Were we or were we not at the beginning of a recesion at the end of Clintons 2nd term. I will answer that for you. YES!!!
Originally Posted By Mr X Plano, when all was said and done that was a minor recession at best, and really not even so much a "recession" as the popping of that silly dot com bubble that NEVER should've existed in the first place. It was utter foolishness (and, of course, now we have more foolishness with the subprime bubble and similar stupid moves by corporations doing things that were OBVIOUSLY bad business). Anyway if you look at the dot com "recession", the nasdaq basically collapsed and a lot of people lost fortunes they never should've had, but the overall markets didn't drop all that precipitously (S&P a total of around 26%, thus a minor recession), and most importantly, not a lot of people lost their jobs. No biggie.
Originally Posted By Mr X Anyway, I think my major issue with that is the fact that irrational people playing roulette with nonexistent "business models" that anyone should've been able to see through is not the fault of the sitting president. Thus I also don't blame the subprime fiasco (greeds triumphs again!) on Bush... There's a lot of things I do blame him for (international bad will, for one), but not the subprime mess. Nor do I blame him, per se, for the collapse in housing prices...it's a natural progression.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo I’ll just import this (with some typographical corrections) from my other post. It probably fits better here than there anyway. ___________________________ First, if Hilary wins the nomination without a majority of the pledge delegates, then it’s tantamount to the 2000 election when Bush lost the popular vote. If Hilary supporters think this is okay, they’re hypocritical for complaining about the selection of Pres. Bush. It will ultimately hurt the Democrat party’s chances of winning in the fall, as being a less than a popularly mandated candidate of the Democrat party. Second, most of the big states she won consistently vote democrat anyway. Where did that get Kerry or Gore? No…democrats need the true, honest-to-God red states in order to have a chance in the fall—states like Colorado, Kansas, the South, Texas, etc… Most of these were won by Obama. Even so, primary wins don’t really mean that they have any better chance of winning in the fall. So this notion is moot anyway. It’s should be about who can energize the party and swing voters, that’s clearly Obama. Third, experience? What experience does Hilary have that makes her a viable candidate for the presidency? This is the biggest laugher of them all. Regardless, do you know who the most “experienced†candidate for the president to have ever been elected was? Nixon…and how well did that turn out. One of the least experienced? Lincoln. So, experience is another moot point as far as I’m concerned. Fourth, if Hilary is elected in the fall, that means that we would have had either a Bush or Clinton in the Presidency (VP included) for 32 years—36 if reelected, from 1980-2016. Are we a democracy, or have we turned our government over to dynasticism? That’s freaking scary if you ask me. Fifth, she claims that she is the best candidate to beat Sen. McCain in November? By what standard? Because EVERY poll I’ve seen that pits Obama vs. McCain has Obama winning by 8 to 12 points. If it’s Clinton vs. McCain, it’s a squeaker that could go either way. In addition, all polling data shows that Clinton does poorly with critical crossover voters and independents, when Obama does extremely well, as does McCain (albeit to a lesser degree). So where did she come up with “I can beat McCain and Obama can’t†mantra? God only knows. Sixth, I don’t think I could vote for Hilary if she defies the will of the voters, and cannibalizes her opponents the way she has Obama. If this is the way it turns out, I might just sit out again. I’m just tired of the same old same old, year after year, decade after decade. Listening to Clinton tripe about “a Platform you can Xerox†(or whatever it was), made me get up and turn off my television. That’s not being a Pollyanna, that’s being someone who is tired of the Beaumandy style political brouhaha we paradoxically call civil debate.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "In any other profession, a company exec., doing what Clinton did with a company intern,"very young", would be soundly reprimanded at the VERY LEAST." So what do you call being impeached?
Originally Posted By wahooskipper Slap on the wrist. If I had an affair with an intern at work I would lose my job. It would be pretty cut and dry. But, I only brought it up because it was a huge personal blunder that will stick with him forever. And, he only has himself to blame. As for the great economy of Clinton. The dot com boom was not to his credit nor was the dot com bust to Bush's detriment. Neither President had an effect on that.
Originally Posted By ecdc As for the "Clinton recession," when Bush took office, gas was about $1.50 a gallon on average. Today, it's closing in on $4. But hey, it's just an amazing coincidence that Bush and Cheney were oilmen with ties to Saudi oil companies.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Slap on the wrist. If I had an affair with an intern at work I would lose my job. It would be pretty cut and dry.<< You can't be serious. Impeachment is a slap on the wrist? It's a formal investigation to determine whether he should keep his job. To continue your comparison, it'd be like if you had sex with an intern at your work and your HR department held a formal investigation and then recommended you be fired. but then when it came to a vote of your bosses, you were kept on. That's hardly a "slap on the wrist." But the larger problem is with your analogy - it doesn't fit. You would be fired (and I probably would as well) for a variety of reasons, none of them having to do with the "moral" issues that so irritated Republicans. I could have sex with any number of co-workers, consequence free, provided they didn't report to me or work directly with me. The issue would be having a personal relationship with someone I have to work with because that can seriously impact my work and productivity; my wife could get a job at the company I work for, but she'd be assigned to a different department and different team of people for precisely these reasons. I somehow doubt you'd be hauled into HR and told (like, ironically Larry Craig told Bill Clinton) that you're "naughty" and that what you did was immoral. It would be a business decision, as well it should. But neither your nor I is the President of the United States. You don't just up and fire the most important job in the country because you don't like that he had sex with an intern.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Slap on the wrist. If I had an affair with an intern at work I would lose my job. It would be pretty cut and dry." Oh, come one. A censure would have been a slap on the wrist. Impeachment meant they did all they could to have him lose his job. And it wasn't the sex that got him anyway, it was the lying about it. If you had an affair and then 'fessed up when caught it's a matter of conjecture as to losing a job.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And it wasn't the sex that got him anyway, it was the lying about it.<< Well, that's what they said and continue to insist was the issue. Personally, given how commonplace lying is among politicians, I don't really buy it. There's enough statements out there that point to the real issue: Republicans loathed Bill Clinton from day one because they saw him as "Slick Willy" and a philanderer. When this confirmed their suspicions, they could barely contain themselves. He lied only after being caught by an investigation into the issue. If it was only about the lying, why was it being investigated in the first place?
