Thank you, President Clinton

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Please nik elaborate, crippled our military? Ok primarily you have to substantiate that claim, secondarily you must show that the reduction in military personnell was a bad thing. Emotions are bad in political discussions mmmmk?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: PipBoy The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

no clinton was smarter. he had smarter financial advisors then what bush has. i dont think it was luck.

Funny how Greenspan was lionized during Clinton and demonized under Bush.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

no clinton was smarter.

he had smarter financial advisors then what bush has.

i dont think it was luck.

If Clinton was that smart, why'd he let Hilary run the country?

More of the same...Un-substantiated claims.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

no clinton was smarter.

he had smarter financial advisors then what bush has.

i dont think it was luck.

If Clinton was that smart, why'd he let Hilary run the country?

where did you hear this at ???

just more crap that you spew.

atleast the country wasn't run by miss cleo during the regean era.

btw i do have proof of that. even funnier is that what was in nancy's book.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

so you saying that it was alright that the country was ran by miss cleo ? does this mean you are going to write her in during the next

election ? you still haven't offered any type of evidence that hillary ran the country.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Clinton didn't ruin our military. He shrunk it, but that was the right thing to do. You grow military during war and shrink it during peace time. If you keep growing the military peace or war, soon you'll be like North Korea. The military Clinton left to Bush did just fine in Afganistan. Besides 300 Billion/year on defense spending did absolutely jack to stop 9/11. If you think extra 100 billion would have, you are very dumb or very misguided.
And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

You would have been as much of a sitting duck had we spent 500 billion dollars a year on defense. Those would just be spent on more toys: star wars, tanks, bombers and would have done zippo to prevent 9/11. Clinton didn't need a Cold War military, and he was right to cut military spending and bring deficits under control.

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: PipBoy The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

no clinton was smarter. he had smarter financial advisors then what bush has. i dont think it was luck.

Funny how Greenspan was lionized during Clinton and demonized under Bush.

i wasnt speaking of greenspan i was talking about the nobel prise winner in economics mark something his name escapes me right now.

 

[Dudd]

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

God damn, how easily are you spooked? It's not as if we became equal to Canada, we still retained the world's largest military. We weren't as big as we were during the Cold War, but we didn't need to oppose the Soviets as much either. Who exactly would have attacked us anyways that made us a 'sitting duck'? Terrorists are the only thing that pops into my mind, and they don't exactly take on a US armor division. It's ludicrous to spend a ton on the military when no one can oppose you. Take a look at Bush and Rumsfield, before 9/11 they thought our military was good enough to skip a generation of weapons technology.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: PipBoy The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

no clinton was smarter. he had smarter financial advisors then what bush has. i dont think it was luck.

Funny how Greenspan was lionized during Clinton and demonized under Bush.

Greenspan is one of the most influential people on earth, however he has no bearing on the president squandering the largest surplus in the history of this Country's existence on a meagre tax cut. It is not his fault that we have been thrust into the hands of an inept "leader" riding his family's name into office...

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DaiShan

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: DaiShan
Let me get this straight, you would rather have a president who had never had oral sex before because of his strong morals? Please. The current president squandered the largest surplus in history and the country has sunk into a recession which flared anew on the coat tails of his pressing for war. I think I would rather have a healthy economy and a scum bag running this country well than the gunslinging oaf we have now...

That last statement of yours speaks volumes about your character. Or lack thereof.

Well thank you that is exactly what I needed some guy over the internet to criticize my character. Did you know it is a crime in many states to engage in oral sex? Since when has it been the duty of government to legislate morality? Yes he lied under oath that was a serious breech of conduct, however you have to ask yourself why he was even put into that position? The point of the matter is Ken Star broadly overstepped his powers as an independent prosecutor. While I do not condone Clinton purjering himself, he should not have been put into that situation. America is one of the most (not the most due to radical islamic fundementalists) modest countries on earth. In Europe there is no problem showing topless women on television, and there are many more nude beaches. Why? They see the human figure differently than we do, we have this overwhelming urge to cover up anything that could be considered scandalous. We bury our heads in the sand in hopes that it might go away. Next time think about your personal priorities as well as those of the Government. If you feel so strongly that you value moral rightness over economic stability and general well-being of this country, well then to quote you "that speaks volumes about your character" I am proud to know we have someone so high and mighty that they can afford to judge others based on moral convictions rather than the facts. I applaud you.

You have to forgive Dave, he's in the service and they hold themselves and others to a higher standards than most citizens and definately to higher standards than most Politicians.

BTW, there is no question that Bush is a Morally Superior Man than Clinton. Only time will tell if he was a better President. He's only been in office two years so it's not fair to compare their terms yet. Also, if I recall Clinton didn't become so popular until he told his wife to STFU. That alone should be enough to have him forgiven for any BJ's he got while in office.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: glenn1

And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

So if he were unpopular, that would have been ok?

To most Clinton supporters, apparently so!

If he were unpopular I doubt the Republicans would have felt the need to make a big deal out of it. Hey they themselves lost a copuple of their leaders because they were found to be Hypocrites . Losing them was like taking one for the team.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

What makes you think a Meglomaniac like Clinton would allow his Bitch wife to run the country and what has any of this to do with Bush?

He's a spineless bastard who doesn't even have the heart to be faithful to his wife. I get the feeling that he's the kind of guy that goes "uh huh, sure dear" while not even paying attention to her. That's why.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Clinton didn't ruin our military. He shrunk it, but that was the right thing to do. You grow military during war and shrink it during peace time. If you keep growing the military peace or war, soon you'll be like North Korea. The military Clinton left to Bush did just fine in Afganistan. Besides 300 Billion/year on defense spending did absolutely jack to stop 9/11. If you think extra 100 billion would have, you are very dumb or very misguided.
And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

You would have been as much of a sitting duck had we spent 500 billion dollars a year on defense. Those would just be spent on more toys: star wars, tanks, bombers and would have done zippo to prevent 9/11. Clinton didn't need a Cold War military, and he was right to cut military spending and bring deficits under control.

I highly doubt that Clinton (or anyone else) would have been able to "prevent" 9/11. However, when it comes to the military, I don't see how cutting it in half (or whatever the numbers were) could be anywhere close to healthy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Well bill and george have one thing in common, they both think with their balls, in bill's case both of them. I guess bill needed to prove his manhood with women, too, and george needs to prove it with guys.

 

[DaiShan]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: glenn1

And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

So if he were unpopular, that would have been ok?

To most Clinton supporters, apparently so!

If he were unpopular I doubt the Republicans would have felt the need to make a big deal out of it. Hey they themselves lost a copuple of their leaders because they were found to be Hypocrites . Losing them was like taking one for the team.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

What makes you think a Meglomaniac like Clinton would allow his Bitch wife to run the country and what has any of this to do with Bush?

He's a spineless bastard who doesn't even have the heart to be faithful to his wife. I get the feeling that he's the kind of guy that goes "uh huh, sure dear" while not even paying attention to her. That's why.

Ad Hominum fallacy. Next?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: glenn1

And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

So if he were unpopular, that would have been ok?

To most Clinton supporters, apparently so!

If he were unpopular I doubt the Republicans would have felt the need to make a big deal out of it. Hey they themselves lost a copuple of their leaders because they were found to be Hypocrites . Losing them was like taking one for the team.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

What makes you think a Meglomaniac like Clinton would allow his Bitch wife to run the country and what has any of this to do with Bush?

He's a spineless bastard who doesn't even have the heart to be faithful to his wife. I get the feeling that he's the kind of guy that goes "uh huh, sure dear" while not even paying attention to her. That's why.

Well according to you that makes FDR and Eisenhower Spineless Bastards too not to mention many others who in history who were considered heroic. Must get kind of lonely up there on that pedestal all by yourself doesn't it niky boy.

 

[katka]

It was known BEFORE he was elected that he was a draft dodger and an adulterer. :Q He was not elected by one vote.😉 With the electoral college he was not REALLY elected by any votes. 🙁

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: glenn1

And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

So if he were unpopular, that would have been ok?

To most Clinton supporters, apparently so!

If he were unpopular I doubt the Republicans would have felt the need to make a big deal out of it. Hey they themselves lost a copuple of their leaders because they were found to be Hypocrites . Losing them was like taking one for the team.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

What makes you think a Meglomaniac like Clinton would allow his Bitch wife to run the country and what has any of this to do with Bush?

He's a spineless bastard who doesn't even have the heart to be faithful to his wife. I get the feeling that he's the kind of guy that goes "uh huh, sure dear" while not even paying attention to her. That's why.

Well according to you that makes FDR and Eisenhower Spineless Bastards too not to mention many others who in history who were considered heroic. Must get kind of lonely up there on that pedestal all by yourself doesn't it niky boy.

Not lonely at all, Ripe Douche. The angels keep me company 😉

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Clinton didn't ruin our military. He shrunk it, but that was the right thing to do. You grow military during war and shrink it during peace time. If you keep growing the military peace or war, soon you'll be like North Korea. The military Clinton left to Bush did just fine in Afganistan. Besides 300 Billion/year on defense spending did absolutely jack to stop 9/11. If you think extra 100 billion would have, you are very dumb or very misguided.
And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

well maybe the president shouldn't talk down to other countries. flat out telling countries that they are evil will not win any congeniality awards.

i know lets do an experiment you tell you neighbor every day that he is evil and you are going to kick his a$$. see what he does.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well bill and george have one thing in common, they both think with their balls, in bill's case both of them. I guess bill needed to prove his manhood with women, too, and george needs to prove it with guys.

I just lost all my respect for you with that post. C'mon - you are better than that MB.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: glenn1

And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

So if he were unpopular, that would have been ok?

To most Clinton supporters, apparently so!

If he were unpopular I doubt the Republicans would have felt the need to make a big deal out of it. Hey they themselves lost a copuple of their leaders because they were found to be Hypocrites . Losing them was like taking one for the team.

Why does Nancy's running the country negate Hilary's running the country? Yes, they both happened. But what does Nancy Reagan have to do with Clinton vs. Bush?

What makes you think a Meglomaniac like Clinton would allow his Bitch wife to run the country and what has any of this to do with Bush?

He's a spineless bastard who doesn't even have the heart to be faithful to his wife. I get the feeling that he's the kind of guy that goes "uh huh, sure dear" while not even paying attention to her. That's why.

Well according to you that makes FDR and Eisenhower Spineless Bastards too not to mention many others who in history who were considered heroic. Must get kind of lonely up there on that pedestal all by yourself doesn't it niky boy.

Not lonely at all, Ripe Douche. The angels keep me company 😉

Edit: Nevermoind, this is getting real stupid rather fast.
Hey nik, you win.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Clinton didn't ruin our military. He shrunk it, but that was the right thing to do. You grow military during war and shrink it during peace time. If you keep growing the military peace or war, soon you'll be like North Korea. The military Clinton left to Bush did just fine in Afganistan. Besides 300 Billion/year on defense spending did absolutely jack to stop 9/11. If you think extra 100 billion would have, you are very dumb or very misguided.
And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

You would have been as much of a sitting duck had we spent 500 billion dollars a year on defense. Those would just be spent on more toys: star wars, tanks, bombers and would have done zippo to prevent 9/11. Clinton didn't need a Cold War military, and he was right to cut military spending and bring deficits under control.

I highly doubt that Clinton (or anyone else) would have been able to "prevent" 9/11. However, when it comes to the military, I don't see how cutting it in half (or whatever the numbers were) could be anywhere close to healthy.

Military spending went down by a third in constant dollars, and half as % of GDP when compared to the Reagan's Arms race era. Those were right cuts at the right time. The arms race was over, Soviet Union was gone. Reagan and Bush never figured out how to pay for these arms anyways, and left us with deficits as far as the eye could see.

 

[Moonbeam]

Devils, if you have a problem with my post it's becasue you didn't understand it right. 😀 No seriously, I suspect you must have assumed I was calling Bush a homosexual. Nope, I'm refering to his macho thingi with Saddam.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: PipBoy
The fact is that this country experienced 8 years of prosperity and relative peace during Clinton's terms. That could have been partly due to the work of his predecessors, planetary alignment, or dumb luck. Whatever it was, we were better off then than we are now.

If you cover your eyes and walk around with your hand out hoping not to hit anything, then you'd be right. But look at what all he did. He ruined our future by doing the things he did. He considerably crippled our military (duh, do I have to explain THAT significance to you?). I didn't think it was possible, but he turned the White House into a JOKE in the eyes of the rest of the world with his scandals. Clinton was worse for this country because all he did was sit on his ass trying to figure out how to make it a warm, cushy, okay-on-the-outside-but-empty-on-the-inside kind of country. Kinda like the man himself.

Clinton didn't ruin our military. He shrunk it, but that was the right thing to do. You grow military during war and shrink it during peace time. If you keep growing the military peace or war, soon you'll be like North Korea. The military Clinton left to Bush did just fine in Afganistan. Besides 300 Billion/year on defense spending did absolutely jack to stop 9/11. If you think extra 100 billion would have, you are very dumb or very misguided.
And the joke to the rest of the world was the Congressional GOP witchhunt going after a popular president over lying about an affair in court.

I would rather feel protected than be a sitting duck, and it's that simple!

You would have been as much of a sitting duck had we spent 500 billion dollars a year on defense. Those would just be spent on more toys: star wars, tanks, bombers and would have done zippo to prevent 9/11. Clinton didn't need a Cold War military, and he was right to cut military spending and bring deficits under control.

I highly doubt that Clinton (or anyone else) would have been able to "prevent" 9/11. However, when it comes to the military, I don't see how cutting it in half (or whatever the numbers were) could be anywhere close to healthy.

Military spending went down by a third in constant dollars, and half as % of GDP when compared to the Reagan's Arms race era. Those were right cuts at the right time. The arms race was over, Soviet Union was gone. Reagan and Bush never figured out how to pay for these arms anyways, and left us with deficits as far as the eye could see.

Again, I'm not even talking about those numbskulls. I'm talking about Clinton. Regulating spending is a good thing, but cutting forces in such drastic numbers isn't the way. It's called cutting unnecessary military overhead spending. Well, or so I would guess. I have yet to earn any degree in finance or government, so I'm hardly one to talk. I just think that cutting back on the number of people in the military and cutting back on the funding to keep these guys armed and ready isn't the way.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Devils, if you have a problem with my post it's becasue you didn't understand it right. 😀 No seriously, I suspect you must have assumed I was calling Bush a homosexual. Nope, I'm refering to his macho thingi with Saddam.

He doesn't have a chance. Everyone knows the average length of a white man's penis is smaller than the average length of a middle easterner's.

😛