Republican or not... the man was a great president.. even though he did ride the Bush Sr.'s wave from the Gulf War which we saw die out at the end of his presidency.
Printable View
Republican or not... the man was a great president.. even though he did ride the Bush Sr.'s wave from the Gulf War which we saw die out at the end of his presidency.
Follow the polls dude,
At least when Clinton was President we IT dudes had a job.I dont give a **** which bird he screwed.Bush had screwed the economy and the future of IT.
dR_eVIL
I'd be more worried about that moron George Bush who is wreaking more havoc that Clinton ever did. I might not live in the US, but as the world's biggest economy whatever happens over there affects us in the UK and I'd rather the FTSE 100 didn't fall through the floor because of the way Bush is running the economy over there.
At the end of the day, I think Clinton was okay as a president - yes his personal/private life was somewhat dubious but then so are the lives of a lot of politicians. Of course, not living in the US I wouldn't experience any mistakes he made in the same way as US citizens would, but overall I think he was a good guy and tried to make the right decisions most of the time (a darn sight more than Tony Blair or George Bush do!).
The thing is, people liked Clinton, even after all the scandals, screw-ups etc. Even now he's still politically active, and, whilst he might not actually be running the country, he's still a fairly powerful person in politics.
BTW, I think the poll options are somewhat biased - there's nothing to say 'Clinton did an okay job' or anything like that, and clintonsucks seems to think that anyone who supports the guy is a crackhead. Now, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but if (and only if) they don't supress the opinions of others at the same time.
People might have liked him, but I sure didn't. He's just one more left-wing hipocrite that was more concerned with how to be reelected than how to best serve his country. He sent national security, the economy, and the credibility of this nation spiraling down when he left office, and now Bush is taking the flak for it. He ignored the threat of terrorism, he raised taxes, and he lied under oath. So, all the people can like Clinton, I don't care, but he is still a lying, cheating, liberal hipocrite! :p
Bush didn't do anything to the economy in my opinion. How about the 9/11 attack and other events. They had a stlight bit more to do than Bush.
He has given an across-the-board tax cut, which will help the economy in the long run. Reagan proved that. I hear all this crap about it being only for the rich, but everyone gets something back with Bush's plan. What people don't realize is that, even if the rich get back more than the Average Joe, they are paying more and deserve to get more back. By no means am I rich (saved for 4 years to get my box), but I still support it because it is better than a tax increase like the Democrats are proposing. It was easy for Clinton to say he helped the economy, it was peacetime. We didn't have a war going on, which changes circumstances. As for 9/11, it was a tragedy, but Bush has done the right thing by seeking out the ones who are responsible. We probably will never know, but what would Clinton or Gore done in Bush's position? Going after these guys doesn't sound to Clinton-esque, with all the anti-war setiment out there. But his actions probably would have depended on where the polls lie and what his SOI (significant other intern) had to say.
Actually if you read the tax proposals, the rich are not as rich as I originally thought. It's the high 90k range for a household. Hell the average Joe around here has a 60k range for household income. Being “rich” isn’t too far away from average income. That's where the Democratic Party places the line for “Rich”. I suppose since me and my GF are in the 90 bracket together, because we work all kinds of long hours, than we deserve more than the 40 percent I am getting gouged for now. I can barely afford a house! Now if I was in rural Ohio I would be one rich bastard, but they don't make referendum for geo-location! So, if you are a democrat running on a tax increase platform, I would be inclined to oppose that issue. Especially since the top 25 percent of wage earners already pay 80 percent of all taxes collected. For reference I can quote hundred of articles I have collected... here is one from a college student..
Quote:
The IRS 2000 figures came out today and there is not much of a surprise. The people earning the most money are being cheated out of what they worked hard for. Al Gore's 'wealthy one percent' of wage earners made 20.81 percent of all the money made in the US in 2000, but they paid 37.42 percent of taxes collected. The top 25 percent of wage earners made 67.15 percent of money made in the US, but paid 84.01 percent of all taxes. That said, people are yelling at me now saying, yea but that top 25 percent is making hundreds of thousands of dollars right?
Wrong. The top 25 percent of wage earners, according to the report, is those making $55,225 and up! And those falling into the top 50 percent of wage earners are paying 96.09 percent of the budget and only making $27,682 and up! So to all of us college students who plan on going out in a few years (or sooner) and having an income of around $50,000 or up, are going to have to fork over a higher percent of our income because we're smarter? No. Because we got lucky? No. Simply because we made more money. That's right folks, in this country we take the people who do the best and hit them in the face with penalties just because they make more.
I plan on working hard and making in that top 25 percent one day. It's good to know I'll be punished for doing so. I'll go as far as to say that my personal liberties will be violated. That's right, I (along with anyone else with an ambition) will be singled out and treated differently than the rest of America only because of how much money I will make. I thought America abolished discrimination?
George Bush didn't take terrorism seriously either - not until September 11th. If the twin towers had been attacked during Clinton's term in office, he probably would have acted in a similar way.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
People might have liked him, but I sure didn't. He's just one more left-wing hipocrite that was more concerned with how to be reelected than how to best serve his country. He sent national security, the economy, and the credibility of this nation spiraling down when he left office, and now Bush is taking the flak for it. He ignored the threat of terrorism, he raised taxes, and he lied under oath. So, all the people can like Clinton, I don't care, but he is still a lying, cheating, liberal hipocrite! :p
At least Clinton could make a speech in public without coming across as an illerate moron (as George Bush Jnr manages to do, in a similar way to his father).
I hated Clinton. He was a dirtbag, but he did one thing right, and it took
some political courage. He defied the provincial minded Democrats and
promoted a free trade policy. In spite of his other unwise policies, free
trade kept the economy rollimg along for his entire time in office.
The economy was due for a cyclical downturn by the time Bush jr was coming
in, so I blame no one for today's economy. Bush has, however, systematically
and cynically lied about the threat of Iraq, waged war on the thin authority
of congressional abdication.
The past is the past. Clinton (thank goodness) is gone. Whether Bush succeeds
or not is really a matter of luck, whether voters believe that the economy
is beginning to recover by this time next year. It's really too bad that we judge
presidents by the state of the economy. Of all factors affecting the economy,
the President of the US is the least significant.
:cool:
pwaring said:
Remember this: "That depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." I don't know how much more moronic you can get.Quote:
At least Clinton could make a speech in public without coming across as an illerate moron (as George Bush Jnr manages to do, in a similar way to his father).
rcgreen said:
Iraq was a threat to the US. It has been proven numerous times that saddam both possessed WMD's and was harboring terrorists by Mr. Powell in he UN. Besides, he got congressional approval to go to war, look at thisQuote:
Bush has, however, systematically and cynically lied about the threat of Iraq, waged war on the thin authority of congressional abdication.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in524191.shtml