Clinton was the worst President in History!

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Bigdude
The terrible things he did to the USA are so vast, I can't even begin to list them all, but here are just a few.

1. He gave us the largest tax increase in history.

2. He had the most scandal ridden administration in history.

3. He was the cause of our Military defeat in Somalia.

4. He burned to death women and children in Waco.

5. He supported and signed the illegal ban on assault weapons, the most sacred and protected class of weapons under the 2nd amendment.

6. He sold pardons.

7. He stole from the Whitehouse, and AirForce 1.

8. He gave nuclear secrets to China, for illegal campaign money.

9. He destroyed the economy, with tax increases, and increased regulation. The economy was expanding when he took office, and it was in recession when he left office.

10. He let Osama Bin Laden go 4 times, he never pursued the terrorists that bombed the Air Force barracks in Saudi, bombed the Cole in Yemen, or the WTC the 1st time.

11. He handicapped the CIA, so they were powerless against terrorism, and Chinese spies stealing nuclear secrets.

12. He gave North Korea nuclear technology.

13. He sold influence to get Hillary elected to the Senate.

14. He is a rapist and sexual predator.

I could go on forever, the list is so long....

Blah Blah Blah.....all I know is when Clinton was in the office, US had one of lowest unemployment rate. Everyone had money in their pocket, and the government actually had surplus, a concept you and Bush certainly cannot grasp. American was still a country respected by international community, and we actually used something called diplomacy with other countries to accomplish common goal, another concept you and Bush cannot grasp.

I know you are ashamed of your current president, but trying to make up crap and divert attention is not gonna do you any good.

 

[yllus]

Oh no, he had sex. The Republicans turned that into a $50+ million waste of time, media attention and money trying for an impeachment the public did not want at all.

Face it, he was a good president. Citing Clinton's cutting the military budget in peacetime is just a nice, convenient excuse to get people onside for the attack.

Lastly. I'm actually pro-gun, but this is hysterical:

He supported and signed the illegal ban on assault weapons, the most sacred and protected class of weapons under the 2nd amendment.

Oh no!!! How will I ever live without my Colt carbine?!!

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Bigdude
1. He gave us the largest tax increase in history.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

2. He had the most scandal ridden administration in history.

Versus Nixon's Watergate? Versus Reagan's Contras? Just because the Repubs were busy with makework doesn't make Clinton's days "the most scandal ridden administration in history".

3. He was the cause of our Military defeat in Somalia.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

4. He burned to death women and children in Waco.

You're a moron.

5. He supported and signed the illegal ban on assault weapons, the most sacred and protected class of weapons under the 2nd amendment.

How will we ever live.

6. He sold pardons.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

7. He stole from the Whitehouse, and AirForce 1.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

8. He gave nuclear secrets to China, for illegal campaign money.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

9. He destroyed the economy, with tax increases, and increased regulation. The economy was expanding when he took office, and it was in recession when he left office.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

10. He let Osama Bin Laden go 4 times, he never pursued the terrorists that bombed the Air Force barracks in Saudi, bombed the Cole in Yemen, or the WTC the 1st time.

Hindsight is pretty cool.

11. He handicapped the CIA, so they were powerless against terrorism, and Chinese spies stealing nuclear secrets.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

12. He gave North Korea nuclear technology.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

13. He sold influence to get Hillary elected to the Senate.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

14. He is a rapist and sexual predator.

Link? Not to an editorial, but to a factual news article?

I could go on forever, the list is so long....

No doubt you could go on forever, but you're obviously an idiot. And for anyone who's no doubt going to chime in with "typical Democrats, attacking the source instead of what he has to say", YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS MORON HAS TO SAY THAT'S WORTH RESPONDING TO.

GODDAMN you people are stupid in your partisanship sometimes.

 

[IamDavid]

Blah Blah Blah.....all I know is when Clinton was in the office, US had one of lowest unemployment rate. Everyone had money in their pocket, and the government actually had surplus, a concept you and Bush certainly cannot grasp. American was still a country respected by international community, and we actually used something called diplomacy with other countries to accomplish common goal, another concept you and Bush cannot grasp.

I know you are ashamed of your current president, but trying to make up crap and divert attention is not gonna do you any good.

lol, Clinton, just like Bush has very little if anything to do with the present state of the economy. Anybody who knows anything about the way markets and economies work will tell you the same thing. Sure a president can change it a little but nothing major.
And Clinton's so called diplomacy sure helped contain NK and Iran.. And it sure kept the terrorist away from us too..

 

[Gaard]

Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Yes, lying under oath is a crime and he was punished for it.

He lied about sex. Yawn.

Anyone who demonizes Clinton for lying, yet supports the likes of Reagan and Bush-lite is a hopelessly partisan hypocrite. You have less than zero credibility.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Zipp
Clinton also was only one of two U.S. presidents ever to be impeached in America history being charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying under oath and obstructing justice. He must be real proud of that.

Charged on a party line vote, for "high crimes and misdemeanors" only in a Rightwinger's head. Never got any public traction for the charade, because it was a joke. Republicans must be proud of abusing the impeachment to attempt to overrule the will of the American people.

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Was that out of a rightwingers mouth?

I do applaud Willy for his creative use of a Cigar... probably a Cuban one at that.

And he marks his territory well to by leaving a little juice on the garments

Yes, that's a high crime.

Clinton won (1992,1996,1998), get over it.

Yes, lying under oath is a crime and he was punished for it. The bar revoked his license - they must be partisan as well

CkG

He was acquitted by the Senate of the United States. Who cares about the bar.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Blah Blah Blah.....all I know is when Clinton was in the office, US had one of lowest unemployment rate. Everyone had money in their pocket, and the government actually had surplus, a concept you and Bush certainly cannot grasp. American was still a country respected by international community, and we actually used something called diplomacy with other countries to accomplish common goal, another concept you and Bush cannot grasp.

I know you are ashamed of your current president, but trying to make up crap and divert attention is not gonna do you any good.

lol, Clinton, just like Bush has very little if anything to do with the present state of the economy. Anybody who knows anything about the way markets and economies work will tell you the same thing. Sure a president can change it a little but nothing major.
And Clinton's so called diplomacy sure helped contain NK and Iran.. And it sure kept the terrorist away from us too..

Yeah, Bush is on TV every other day telling us how his tax cuts will improve the economy, yet we are to believe that the president has little to do with the state of the economy. You calling Bush a liar?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

I'm not saying it serves the best interests of the country. Nor am I saying that the way he was hounded by his opposition was in any way justified or excusable. What I am saying is that what Clinton did was wrong and people need to just admit it without justifying it by saying "So-and-so was worse". Of course, his sexcapades aren't that bad, but lying to the American people is worse than having sex with a subordinate. Agree?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

The republicans put their party interests ahead of the United States' interests. They did everything in their power to undermine the sitting commander in chief, without any regard for what that was doing to our security, and the perception of the US abroad as a house divided.

 

[IamDavid]

Yeah, Bush is on TV every other day telling us how his tax cuts will improve the economy, yet we are to believe that the president has little to do with the state of the economy. You calling Bush a liar?

Yes I am. No doubt in my mind all this is, is an attempt to keep up support with his base. Thats all economic politics are. I can here the corporate leaders ripping out the checks they just wrote to the RNC and sending them in.. All in all its not a bad thing though. At least now the democrats won't spend all my damn money on useless socialistic programs..

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

I'm not saying it serves the best interests of the country. Nor am I saying that the way he was hounded by his opposition was in any way justified or excusable. What I am saying is that what Clinton did was wrong and people need to just admit it without justifying it by saying "So-and-so was worse". Of course, his sexcapades aren't that bad, but lying to the American people is worse than having sex with a subordinate. Agree?

Yes, it was wrong to lie to Americans about Monica.
But the whole impeachment charade did much more damage to the US than Clinton's lying about sex ever did.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Yeah, Bush is on TV every other day telling us how his tax cuts will improve the economy, yet we are to believe that the president has little to do with the state of the economy. You calling Bush a liar?

Yes I am. No doubt in my mind all this is, is an attempt to keep up support with his base. Thats all economic politics are. I can here the corporate leaders ripping out the checks they just wrote to the RNC and sending them in.. All in all its not a bad thing though. At least now the democrats won't spend all my damn money on useless socialistic programs..

Like what? What "socialistic" programs has Bush cut?

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Bigdude
The terrible things he did to the USA are so vast, I can't even begin to list them all, but here are just a few.

2. He had the most scandal ridden administration in history.

Compared to Bush (either one) or Reagan? You're out of your mind. At least he didn't start a war under false pretenses, impose double standards on weapon disarmament, lower taxes for image while maintaining the largest budget deficit ever even before that break, and try to claim ownership of space as being hellbent on world domination wasn't enough. Just because Clinton got some head on the side doesn't make it the most scandal ridden administration. Hell, Take a look at Barbara Bush and tell me Bush Sr. wasn't looking elsewhere....

3. He was the cause of our Military defeat in Somalia.

Link?

4. He burned to death women and children in Waco.

Link? Note: Just because you read it in The Onion or The Brain's Trust doesn't make it true

5. He supported and signed the illegal ban on assault weapons, the most sacred and protected class of weapons under the 2nd amendment.

That is a shame. We were all hoping you'd go buy one and test it on yourself.

7. He stole from the Whitehouse, and AirForce 1.
8. He gave nuclear secrets to China, for illegal campaign money.

Link? Note: Just because you read it in The Onion or The Brain's Trust doesn't make it true

9. He destroyed the economy, with tax increases, and increased regulation. The economy was expanding when he took office, and it was in recession when he left office.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Newsflash! most of the crappiness of the economy before Bush Jr. took office was from Reagan. Clinton was the only president to reduce the debt since the 70's. Bush at the rate he's going will have added several TRILLION to it. 20 years ago it didn't even have as many digits as what the Bush administration has added to it.

11. He handicapped the CIA, so they were powerless against terrorism, and Chinese spies stealing nuclear secrets.

And how was this any different before Clinton..... how is it any different now?

13. He sold influence to get Hillary elected to the Senate.

And Bush Sr. didn't influence Bush Jr. getting into the Presidency? Ya, it took a lot of influence to get Hillary into the Senate after she ran the country for 4 years....

14. He is a rapist and sexual predator.

Link? Note: Just because you read it in The Onion or The Brain's Trust doesn't make it true

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

I'm not saying it serves the best interests of the country. Nor am I saying that the way he was hounded by his opposition was in any way justified or excusable. What I am saying is that what Clinton did was wrong and people need to just admit it without justifying it by saying "So-and-so was worse". Of course, his sexcapades aren't that bad, but lying to the American people is worse than having sex with a subordinate. Agree?

Yes, it was wrong to lie to Americans about Monica.
But the whole impeachment charade did much more damage to the US than Clinton's lying about sex ever did.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why can't people admit that what Clinton did was wrong without having a "but...." tacked on?

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: IamDavid

Yeah, Bush is on TV every other day telling us how his tax cuts will improve the economy, yet we are to believe that the president has little to do with the state of the economy. You calling Bush a liar?

Yes I am. No doubt in my mind all this is, is an attempt to keep up support with his base. Thats all economic politics are. I can here the corporate leaders ripping out the checks they just wrote to the RNC and sending them in.. All in all its not a bad thing though. At least now the democrats won't spend all my damn money on useless socialistic programs..

Like what? What "socialistic" programs has Bush cut?

None unfortunately. He doesn't want to make the working middle class think he is a true conservative which is smart for his re election campaign. After which he will be able to do anything he wants..

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Bigdude

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
I believe there now meds that can help ground people in a single universe.

You should take them!

I really really really hope people like you don't vote, that kind of reactionary, hasty generalizing propoganda, which is designed to stir emotions, and in-so-doing cloud judgment is the most idiotic and backwards idea I have ever heard. There are too few hours in the day for me to go point by point on your "arguments" (I use the term loosly because a 2 year old could see through them)... *speechless*

 

[LunarRay]

That is open for debate but, one thing for certain... Gore Won!

At least in '92 and '96.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: IamDavid
I don't think he was the worst. But he sure wasn't a very good one. The worst part of what he did was cut our national defense so much. He totaly gutted or military an overworked them.
Not many people know when he cut the US budget that 90% of his cuts came from ther DOD.. Damn good work Mr. Clinton.

I only wish that the cuts had come from education like they do now! The united states has the most advanced and efficent millitary in the world, and we do it the cheapest. just 3.5% of our GDP goes toward defense, whereas countries such as North Korea spend upwards of 30%, and still do not compare. ah the burdens of intelligence...*sigh*

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Kiyup
You could have placed your points more eloquently, but most of those do have some basis in fact.

EXACTLY!

There is A LOT of fact in there.

Notice all the assholes in here who cannot argue/debate with him only choose to use personal attacks against him? That behavior right there usually means that some of what he said is true.

You are begining to pique my interest, and one thing you do NOT want is my total and undivided attention. I will start out by first pointing out that beyond the obvious fallacy of a hasty generalization in the OP, he continues with Ad hominem attacks on President Clinton. He outright says that Clinton did each of those things, which are in fact false, thus his ENTIRE arguement FAILS, it does not establish prima facie, and cannot be considered on any deeper point which may have inadvertantly scored points. You, like 90% of the other people in this world are not concerened with making points, or establishing a weighing mechanism for the discussion, but rather are more concerned with silencing the minority and speaking over them. I am TELLING you that this will not get you any where in an intelligent discussion.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: IamDavid
I don't think he was the worst. But he sure wasn't a very good one. The worst part of what he did was cut our national defense so much. He totaly gutted or military an overworked them.
Not many people know when he cut the US budget that 90% of his cuts came from ther DOD.. Damn good work Mr. Clinton.

I only wish that the cuts had come from education like they do now! The united states has the most advanced and efficent millitary in the world, and we do it the cheapest. just 3.5% of our GDP goes toward defense, whereas countries such as North Korea spend upwards of 30%, and still do not compare. ah the burdens of intelligence...*sigh*

Cuts in education? Where? When? I must have missed that bill. Actually I wish we would cut some education spending. The last study found 20% of the money is essentially wasted but we can't do nothing about it. The Teachers Union, who I despise, would cry fowl and claim we are abandoning our youths..

And maybe if our military was any stronger NK would be such a threat as they are now. We can do nothing to them but wait for them to develop there Nukes...

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Kiyup
You could have placed your points more eloquently, but most of those do have some basis in fact.

EXACTLY!

There is A LOT of fact in there.

Notice all the assholes in here who cannot argue/debate with him only choose to use personal attacks against him? That behavior right there usually means that some of what he said is true.

Clinton did many bad things. He did not start a war under false pretenses however.
As for the original poster this speaks volumes for credibility

From Bigdude
After WW2 we were the only superpower, we were the only nuclear power. We should have banned all other countries from nuclear weapons. There wouldn't of been an arms race, no cold war, no challenge to US security. We wouldn't have to worry about China, North Korea, or nuclear terrorism.

While his comments in the thread seem extreme ...... Stopping the spread of Nuclear Weaponry and Nuclear WASTE is a very pragmatic goal and one that may have been a True Historical Responsibility of the United States of America

LOOK at who has NUKES now...

Are you implying that US hegemony is key to world peace? Furthermore, are you saying that it is the duty of the United States to police the rest of the world. It seems to me also that you are using the premise of world security as a weighing mechanism to justify US global domination, politically, economically, and millitarily, is this true?

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: Gaard
Whether or not you think what he did was wrong (you're free to believe that the married president getting a hummer from a 20-year-old intern under the oval office desk isn't wrong if you want), perjury is perjury. It doesn't matter what questions he was asked or if you think the questions were appropiate, perjury is perjury.

You tell me how it serves the best interests of the nation to have their president forced to come to the stand and testify about his sex life.

Perjury is perjury, but going as low as Clinton's opposition did to destroy his public face is IMO just as inexcusable.

I'm not saying it serves the best interests of the country. Nor am I saying that the way he was hounded by his opposition was in any way justified or excusable. What I am saying is that what Clinton did was wrong and people need to just admit it without justifying it by saying "So-and-so was worse". Of course, his sexcapades aren't that bad, but lying to the American people is worse than having sex with a subordinate. Agree?

Yes, it was wrong to lie to Americans about Monica.
But the whole impeachment charade did much more damage to the US than Clinton's lying about sex ever did.

See, this is what I'm talking about. Why can't people admit that what Clinton did was wrong without having a "but...." tacked on?

There are two sides to every story, the "but" is often necessary to establish that fact, not everything is in black and white, there are shades of gray that are dealt with every day. You play the perfect oppressing majority by attempting to silence the views of the minority. You are to be commended, I will have a plack sent your way, of course it will have a copy of the bill of rights attached, and #1 will be hilighted, but you should still enjoy your victory!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Kiyup
You could have placed your points more eloquently, but most of those do have some basis in fact.

EXACTLY!

There is A LOT of fact in there.

Notice all the assholes in here who cannot argue/debate with him only choose to use personal attacks against him? That behavior right there usually means that some of what he said is true.

You are begining to pique my interest, and one thing you do NOT want is my total and undivided attention. I will start out by first pointing out that beyond the obvious fallacy of a hasty generalization in the OP, he continues with Ad hominem attacks on President Clinton. He outright says that Clinton did each of those things, which are in fact false, thus his ENTIRE arguement FAILS, it does not establish prima facie, and cannot be considered on any deeper point which may have inadvertantly scored points. You, like 90% of the other people in this world are not concerened with making points, or establishing a weighing mechanism for the discussion, but rather are more concerned with silencing the minority and speaking over them. I am TELLING you that this will not get you any where in an intelligent discussion.

Be aware of that these "Ad hominem attacks" are occuring against the current president too Are you also opposed to those "attacks"? Hmmm. Time will tell...or has it already spoken.

CkG