Clinton fans - convince me. Please tell me what makes you think he was so wonderful? -this is a serious inquiry-

Flatline

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2001
1,248
0
0
Wow, this ought to start one heck of a p!ssing contest, but I really am curious and perhaps some of the less rabid fans will make a few valid points.

I would like to keep the flames to a minimum if possible.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
:)

for me the question is too broad.

why do i feel clinton contributed to the economic boom during his administration?

he didn't over spend and shift funds from the booming industries to industries of govt. choosing.

ironically, in my opinion the reason why i think clinton contributed to the economy during his administration was due to the fact that he was a republican - military spending.

ironically in my opinion most of the republican presidents of last 25 yrs have only been republican in name, they've actually tinkered wayy to much with the economy by investing too much in military research etc.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.

He also did a good job of being fiscally conservative and reducing the deficit.
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: alchemize
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.
omg we agree on something.

 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: alchemize
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.

He also did a good job of being fiscally conservative and reducing the deficit.
WOW! Something that most of the lefties are lacking and result to their personall "Bush cant ride horses" attacks :D
 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: Tabb
Originally posted by: alchemize
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.

He also did a good job of being fiscally conservative and reducing the deficit.
WOW! Something that most of the lefties are lacking and result to their personall "Bush cant ride horses" attacks :D
now that has to be the MOST hypocritical statement i've ever read. and RIGHTIES didn't take pot shots at Clinton?

just say, good for you alchemize for being an intelligent individual and let it go. your little pot shot at "lefties" only shows your ignorance.
 

Flatline

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2001
1,248
0
0
Now be fair, guys. It's easy to criticize (fun too). I don't think as many pot-shots would be taken at presidents if they didn't make it so darn easy!
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.

He also did a good job of being fiscally conservative and reducing the deficit.
I'm curious why you think he shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits while in office. If he did something wrong, he should be held accountable. Just an allegation...that's different, but it was proven that he did have sexual relations and he lied about it to the american people. He should have stepped down and resigned the presidency to Gore. Not simply for the sexual relations, but because he lied about it. The difference between Bush in Iraq and Clinton is that Bush made the best decision he could based on the evidence he was given. Clinton, on the other hand, looked the american people in the eye and consiously said something that he knew was not true. I don't know how anyone could trust him after that. If he woud lie about something as simple as a personal issue, then I don't know how anyone could trust him with the future of this country.

I agree that his handling of the economy was not bad, however it was not very good either. A more skilled president would have slowed the economy so that it wouldn't just burst and free fall (like it did). A more skilled president would have slowed the economy so that the prosperity was less, but longer. Instead of having 5 years of great economic growth, he should have slowed things to have 10 years of medium or slower growth. That would have made the economy more stable. He also squandered the great economy that we had. With all those years of great growth, we should have seen huge surpluses for years, or at least tax cuts, but we only saw small surpluses and increses in taxes. Not to mention that the military budget, and NASA's budget was slashed. Where did all the extra money go?

I would also argue that he was not a good leader. If you listen to some soldiers that Clinton sent out to Bosnia, they were sleeping in mud and had no orders at all. They were just there. Some high ranking military people said he was the worst commander they had ever seen, and some of them had been there for decades.
 

Flatline

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2001
1,248
0
0
Wasn't it Greenspan's job (not Clinton's) to "slow the economy down"? It wouldn't have been easy to do in any case.

 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
Why purposely try to invite trouble? Let me guess, you are big Dubbya fan right?
 

Flatline

Golden Member
Jun 28, 2001
1,248
0
0
No, I'm not a big Dubbya fan. I'm also not a big Clinton fan. I'm just curious as to why so many people think he's so great.
 

KAMAZON

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2001
1,300
0
76
www.alirazeghi.com
Originally posted by: Flatline
Wow, this ought to start one heck of a p!ssing contest, but I really am curious and perhaps some of the less rabid fans will make a few valid points.
It's not that Clinton was so good, but that the Cheney/Bush duo are so bad. Even Jimmy Carter seems like a strong president compared to Bush, and Jimmy was one of the biggest disasters we've had!
 

rchiu

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2002
3,846
0
0
Originally posted by: Flatline
No, I'm not a big Dubbya fan. I'm also not a big Clinton fan. I'm just curious as to why so many people think he's so great.
Clinto was great because the we are comparing him with Bush. If we got someone in the White House who didn't spent money away like Bush, distoryed our international relationship like Bush or started wars without justifications like Bush, we won't even remember who Clinton was.
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,510
2
81
Wasn't it Greenspan's job (not Clinton's) to "slow the economy down"?
Yes it is. And he did try, remember? Remember the "soft landing" Greenspan was aiming for? But the economy isn't so easily controlled. It's like a wild beast.
 

chowderhead

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 1999
2,633
263
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII


I'm curious why you think he shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits while in office. If he did something wrong, he should be held accountable. Just an allegation...that's different, but it was proven that he did have sexual relations and he lied about it to the american people.
IIRC, some people dug up Paula Jones and she filed a civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. It had nothing to do with his actions during the Presidency. I mean she waited until he was president to file the lawsuit, why couldn't she wait until he was not president anymore?
It was during the course of the trail that the whole Monica thing came up. I mean how in the whole did we get from whitewater an investigation about land-deals into Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky?

 

NesuD

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,999
106
106
Originally posted by: alchemize
Folks will be suprised at me posting this :)

I think Clinton was a relatively good president, for a democrat. He was mostly centrist. I think the supreme court ruling was totally inappropriate. Presidents should not be subject to civil lawsuits while in office.

While I often disagreed with his position, he was a leader, he was very personable, he did a good job of letting the economy run itself (didn't replace greenspan) and I respected him because he was our president.

He also did a good job of being fiscally conservative and reducing the deficit.
Remember when the government shutdown because He and congress couldn'y agree on a budget. If I remember correctly he refused to approve that budget because congress didn't let him spend as much as he wanted. I think you give him far to much credit when you characterize him as fiscally conservative. In reality only congress has the power to spend our tax money. I think the congress deserves far more credit for the deficit reduction than Clinton does. He pretty much was forced to comply with congresses wishes as i see it.

 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
Wasn't it Greenspan's job (not Clinton's) to "slow the economy down"?
Yes it is. And he did try, remember? Remember the "soft landing" Greenspan was aiming for? But the economy isn't so easily controlled. It's like a wild beast.
if it hadn't been for 9-11 we woulda had a chance at a soft landing.

our economy is pretty resilient don't you think, considering what we went thru, 9-11, enron etc etc and we still haven't really technically hit a recession tho it feels like it because of the long period of growth that we had.
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: XZeroII


I'm curious why you think he shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits while in office. If he did something wrong, he should be held accountable. Just an allegation...that's different, but it was proven that he did have sexual relations and he lied about it to the american people.
IIRC, some people dug up Paula Jones and she filed a civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. It had nothing to do with his actions during the Presidency. I mean she waited until he was president to file the lawsuit, why couldn't she wait until he was not president anymore?
It was during the course of the trail that the whole Monica thing came up. I mean how in the whole did we get from whitewater an investigation about land-deals into Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky?
To be quite honest, when all that mess with Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica, Whitewater, <insert favorite detractor here> were occuring, I sat back and wished for it to go away. How terrible and degrading for a sitting President to endure such garbage.
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: XZeroII


I'm curious why you think he shouldn't be subject to civil lawsuits while in office. If he did something wrong, he should be held accountable. Just an allegation...that's different, but it was proven that he did have sexual relations and he lied about it to the american people.
IIRC, some people dug up Paula Jones and she filed a civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton for sexual harassment when Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas. It had nothing to do with his actions during the Presidency. I mean she waited until he was president to file the lawsuit, why couldn't she wait until he was not president anymore?
It was during the course of the trail that the whole Monica thing came up. I mean how in the whole did we get from whitewater an investigation about land-deals into Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica Lewinsky?
To be quite honest, when all that mess with Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Monica, Whitewater, <insert favorite detractor here> were occuring, I sat back and wished for it to go away. How terrible and degrading for a sitting President to endure such garbage.
Yes, it was terrible. Of course, did you ever ask yourself why he had to endure it? Did you ever think that maybe he was lying in the bed he made?

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Clinton may have been alright if he did'nt have to constantly defend himself from BS republican attacks, witchhunts, a fight the corporate machines. He eventually chickened out an bowed to pressure which in some ways makes him one of the worst presidents I can think of. He did'nt lead and was always playing defense. Hard to score on defense.

Vast right wing conspiracy
 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Gaard

Yes, it was terrible. Of course, did you ever ask yourself why he had to endure it? Did you ever think that maybe he was lying in the bed he made?
At the time, my three biggest concerns in life were wondering when my current deployment would end, when the next might begin and where to invest the money I was saving. Politics was but an alien concept without any relevent substance.

Certainly, I asked myself why - 3-5 years after the fact.

 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Gaard

Yes, it was terrible. Of course, did you ever ask yourself why he had to endure it? Did you ever think that maybe he was lying in the bed he made?
At the time, my three biggest concerns in life were wondering when my current deployment would end, when the next might begin and where to invest the money I was saving. Politics was but an alien concept without any relevent substance.

Certainly, I asked myself why - 3-5 years after the fact.
So what's the answer to your third concern? Did it pan out? :)

 

PlatinumGold

Lifer
Aug 11, 2000
23,168
0
71
Originally posted by: Zebo
Clinton may have been alright if he did'nt have to constantly defend himself from BS republican attacks, witchhunts, a fight the corporate machines. He eventually chickened out an bowed to pressure which in some ways makes him one of the worst presidents I can think of. He did'nt lead and was always playing defense. Hard to score on defense.

Vast right wing conspiracy
your link didn't work for me.

i don't know if your being serious or tongue in cheek.

but let me weigh in here as a somewhat fan of clinton.

Clintons mistake was NOT what he did with paula jones or Monica lewinski, both were forgivable and he would NEVER have been impeached on those grounds. Clintons mistake was Lying. In court and TO the american people.

IF he had just said, YES, i slept with monica lewinski it would have been finished, case closed, over.

However he didn't, did he deserve to be impeached for it? congress at the time thought so and that's enough. that is the voice of the american people and whethor or NOT i believe it was an impeachable offense, congress thought so and i accept that.

HOWEVER, when looking at clintons legacy i think one should look at NOT just his impeachment but what proceeded that. just like with Nixon. Were his actions impeachable actions? I believe they were, BUT can i deny EVERYTHING else about him because of that one impeachable offense? NO.

they are similar, for both at the end, they sought power for the sake of power and THAT is unforgivable, however when they started out they were both good leaders.

 

burnedout

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 1999
6,249
2
0
Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: burnedout
Originally posted by: Gaard

Yes, it was terrible. Of course, did you ever ask yourself why he had to endure it? Did you ever think that maybe he was lying in the bed he made?
At the time, my three biggest concerns in life were wondering when my current deployment would end, when the next might begin and where to invest the money I was saving. Politics was but an alien concept without any relevent substance.

Certainly, I asked myself why - 3-5 years after the fact.
So what's the answer to your third concern? Did it pan out? :)
LOL, Well, I was able to arrange for a comfortable retirement and ride out dot-bomb in excellent condition.

Actually, reading these boards and going back to college has greatly increased my perspective. The differing views one finds here among the objective posters, such as yourself, has proven quite educational. I readily admit leading a politically-sheltered life for almost 20 years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY