Clinton: Climate change is the world's biggest worry

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
The US has lost so much good will around the world as a reuslt of Dumbya's arrogance, duplicitousness, laziness and stupidity. But I think the USA could turn it all around, if it chooses to elect a leader with a bit of sophisitication, intelligence and sensitivity. Case in point: In Davos just a few days ago, Bill Clinton had the Europeans eating out of the palm of his hand - and all he had to do was speak a little bit of sense. :) Clinton made some interesting observations on climate change, US foreign policy and Iran.

Article


January 28, 2006, DAVOS, Switzerland -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton told corporate chieftains and political bigwigs Saturday that climate change was the world's biggest problem - followed by global inequality and the "apparently irreconcilable" religious and cultural differences behind terrorism.

"First, I worry about climate change," Clinton said in an onstage conversation with the founder of the World Economic Forum. "It's the only thing that I believe has the power to fundamentally end the march of civilization as we know it, and make a lot of the other efforts that we're making irrelevant and impossible."

snip

Clinton won frequent enthusiastic applause - not a common situation at the annual gathering in the Swiss Alps - for articulating a global vision more conciliatory and inclusive than the one many of the assembled tend to associate with U.S. politics.

People around the world "basically want to know that we're on their side, that we wish them well, that we want the best for them, that we're pulling for them," he said.

Clinton called on current world leaders to seek ways of easing the "apparently irreconcilable religious and cultural differences in the world, that are manifest most stunningly in headlines about terrorist actions but really go far beyond that."

"You really can't have a global economy or a global society or a global approach to health and other things unless there is some sense of global community."

snip

Iran, he argued, must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and neither economic sanctions nor "any other option" should be ruled out as ways of preventing this. But he warned there would be "an enormous political price to pay if the global community ... looked like they went to force before everything else has been exhausted."

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,953
44,825
136
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Clinton should have formulated an energy policy and got it passed in congress.

btw I think the situation in Iran is a more immediate issue. A nutcase with a nuke who thinks it is his godly duty to erase the Jews is scary. It is like Adoplf Hitler with a nuke.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

oh please, what does he have to gain by lying? He isn't running for office. I think reflexively calling him a liar is pretty insulting. I don't think he is any more of a liar than YOU or I [me?]. (You've never told a lie about your private or personal life?) I'd suggest reading up on the amazing humanitarian work he's done since leaving office before making such snarky comments about this admirable man.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

QFT. You forgot to add "camera friendly" to your list of Clinton traits (though Hillary definitely doesn't share in that.)
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.

Clinton was not a great president. But then, Bush isn't either.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.

Clinton was not a great president. But then, Bush isn't either.

Why do you think he wasn't great?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,953
44,825
136
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

oh please, what does he have to gain by lying? He isn't running for office. I think reflexively calling him a liar is pretty insulting. I don't think he is any more of a liar than YOU or I [me?]. (You've never told a lie about your private or personal life?) I'd suggest reading up on the amazing humanitarian work he's does since leaving office before making such snarky comments about this admirable man.

Well, it is clear that you idolize the man to the point that you can't possibly see any of his flaws (and they do exist).

My comments could also be considered an indictment of Bush's competency in certain areas (as I intended).
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

oh please, what does he have to gain by lying? He isn't running for office. I think reflexively calling him a liar is pretty insulting. I don't think he is any more of a liar than YOU or I [me?]. (You've never told a lie about your private or personal life?) I'd suggest reading up on the amazing humanitarian work he's does since leaving office before making such snarky comments about this admirable man.

Well, it is clear that you idolize the man to the point that you can't possibly see any of his flaws (and they do exist).

I don't idolize him at all. He is a very talented, yet flawed, individual. I don't think compulsive dishonestly is one of those flaw. Overall, I think he is a pretty admirable individual, despite his character flaws.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.

Clinton was not a great president. But then, Bush isn't either.

Why do you think he wasn't great?

Lets answer one question first since you made a statement about Clinton. What makes you think he was a "great" president?

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.

Clinton was not a great president. But then, Bush isn't either.

Why do you think he wasn't great?

Lets answer one question first since you made a statement about Clinton. What makes you think he was a "great" president?

His qualities make a good Leader and that is the greatest aspect of being a Great President. Despite being hampered by the Political machine that thwarted his every move through abuse of power, the People recognized his ability to see things clearly and supported him. Even now he is respected and People listen to what he has to say. Even Bush calls on Clinton for help.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,953
44,825
136
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

oh please, what does he have to gain by lying? He isn't running for office. I think reflexively calling him a liar is pretty insulting. I don't think he is any more of a liar than YOU or I [me?]. (You've never told a lie about your private or personal life?) I'd suggest reading up on the amazing humanitarian work he's does since leaving office before making such snarky comments about this admirable man.

Well, it is clear that you idolize the man to the point that you can't possibly see any of his flaws (and they do exist).

I don't idolize him at all. He is a very talented, yet flawed, individual. I don't think compulsive dishonestly is one of those flaw. Overall, I think he is a pretty admirable individual, despite his character flaws.

It looked that way from how you jumped all over me.

He has many virtues, honesty is not strong among them IMO.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,677
6,250
126
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: K1052
Not exactly a suprise, Clinton was always close with the Europeans.

Clinton is several things that Bush is not: articulate, cultured, an exceptionally good liar, and a talented veteran politician.

All the more reason to be wary when he's telling you exactly what you want to hear.

oh please, what does he have to gain by lying? He isn't running for office. I think reflexively calling him a liar is pretty insulting. I don't think he is any more of a liar than YOU or I [me?]. (You've never told a lie about your private or personal life?) I'd suggest reading up on the amazing humanitarian work he's does since leaving office before making such snarky comments about this admirable man.

Well, it is clear that you idolize the man to the point that you can't possibly see any of his flaws (and they do exist).

My comments could also be considered an indictment of Bush's competency in certain areas (as I intended).

Everyone has flaws, it's part of the Human condition.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: sandorski
Clinton was a great President hampered by corrupt polticians abusing their power.

Clinton was not a great president. But then, Bush isn't either.

Why do you think he wasn't great?

Lets answer one question first since you made a statement about Clinton. What makes you think he was a "great" president?

His qualities make a good Leader and that is the greatest aspect of being a Great President. Despite being hampered by the Political machine that thwarted his every move through abuse of power, the People recognized his ability to see things clearly and supported him. Even now he is respected and People listen to what he has to say. Even Bush calls on Clinton for help.

That doesnt make him "great". In fact you didnt name a single accomplishment outside of being a "good" but not "great" leader. Which is just an opinion that isnt quantifiable anyways.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
A great leader doesn't sell military secrets to the Chinese. A great leader doesn't start a war because of revenge. A great leader doesn't lie under oath...no matter the consequence.

A great leader leads by example. A great leader cares more about those they are leading than themselves.

 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy.

Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

You think that was through forced redistribution from a govt policy?

I have Ocean front property in Colorado for sale, trust me it has a great view ;)


 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: broon
A great leader doesn't sell military secrets to the Chinese. A great leader doesn't start a war because of revenge. A great leader doesn't lie under oath...no matter the consequence.

A great leader leads by example. A great leader cares more about those they are leading than themselves.

meh.

Name a single "great leader" who didn't have multiple character flaws.

Clinton was dishonest about 1 thing - his bedroom antics.

The Bush administration practically invented "truthiness" - lies and hogwog that sound vaguely like the truth, presented as the truth.


 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,953
44,825
136
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

I'm going to have to disagree that the prosperity of the time was a result of Clinton's policies.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

I'm going to have to disagree that the prosperity of the time was a result of Clinton's policies.

I agree. Most of that was just timing. Just like the bursting bubble (which happened under Clinton as well).
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

I'm going to have to disagree that the prosperity of the time was a result of Clinton's policies.

I agree. Most of that was just timing. Just like the bursting bubble (which happened under Clinton as well).

I think in time people will realize just how crazy the internet boom really was. How many people got scammed on false promises and how much of a truely fake boom it really was.

I still enjoy remembering a company that probably netted the founders millions but never delivered a single product where they were going to bring smell to the internet lmao.

I could literally make up the most pointless and hopeless technology and add a .com on the end and some idiot with millions would be right there to fund my lottery winnings.


 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

I'm going to have to disagree that the prosperity of the time was a result of Clinton's policies.

I agree. Most of that was just timing. Just like the bursting bubble (which happened under Clinton as well).

Then you are both fools - and you get the government you deserve.

Don't think there isn't prosperity in the USA under Bush. Companies are reporting their biggest profits in HISTORY. Under Bush there has been a dramatic increase in the number of millionaires. It's all about the balance between the richest citizens and everyone else (the middle class). That balance is influenced by federal tax policy amongst other things.
 

broon

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,660
1
81
Keep thinking the president is fully responsible for the country's financial success. And keep thinking the Republicans only want the rich to keep getting richer and don't care about the middle class.

When will people quit putting their faith in party association?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,953
44,825
136
Originally posted by: aidanjm
Originally posted by: broon
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: aidanjm
One cool thing about Clinton was the way he was willing to spread the wealth and prosperity around (thru his economic and tax policies). So during Clinton's time in office, median household income rose by almost 2% per year. Compare with Bush, under Bush median household income has declined by around 1% per year, while the wealthiest segment of the population have become vastly more wealthy (due to Bush's tax policies favoring the wealthiest segment of the population at the expense of the middle class):


Check out this cool graph (says it all really)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=107&subsecID=295&contentID=252964

Median Household Income20
Median household income is the best measure of American families' well-being because it shows the true economic mid-point of the population. By definition, half of all households make more than the median, and half make less. (Average household income figures are bad measures of overall well-being, because a small percentage of very rich families can skew the picture, making everyone appear to be richer than they are.) Median household income has fallen an average of 1.15 percent per year under Bush. It rose an average of 1.65 percent per year under Clinton.

I'm going to have to disagree that the prosperity of the time was a result of Clinton's policies.

I agree. Most of that was just timing. Just like the bursting bubble (which happened under Clinton as well).

Then you are both fools - and you get the government you deserve.

Don't think there isn't prosperity in the USA under Bush. Companies are reporting their biggest profits in HISTORY. Under Bush there has been a dramatic increase in the number of millionaires. It's all about the balance between richest and poorest citizens. That balance is influenced by federal tax policy amongst other things.

It is foolish to think that the President personally controls every facet of the economy (outside a Stalinist type state) and can minutely adjust everything for the best performance.

This is not a SIM game.