I agree with three out of four.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
to peace and prosperity!
<T>
katharina... you're oh so cute! Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
to taxes, government, and socialism!
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
::raises glass to socialism:: hear, hear!
Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
Finally, a socialist thread that I can cheer for!
Gooooo-Socialists! Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
*parties*
Clinton was awesome.
Let us not forget his paying off of a large chunk of national debt, keeping us at peace, and giving us the best economy we've ever had. What were his big mistakes? Getting a bj, and passing NAFTA? Right, NAFTA was that bill that was supposed to help other countries, but because of bad timing, hurt us a little too much. Darn. Maybe if Bush would get rid of that tax loop that's outsourcing jobs, NAFTA wouldn't hurt that bad...
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yay for burning children alive in Waco! Yay for returning Elian to Cuba! Yay for turning down OBL when Sudan offered him! Yay for turning a blind eye to terrorism for 8 years! Yay for an economy run on empty paper and lies that came tumbling down starting in '98 and has just started bouncing back! Yay for interns! Yay for the Olso peace accords that brought the most Palistinian terror bombings than in all the years before!
Bill Clinton was a swell guy.
Oh and prior to that, Yay for doubling my freaking tuition in 4 years. Yay for doubling my home state's sales tax. Yay for the statement "I see no need for a road there [Northwest Arkansas]"
[ June 18, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hahahaha! Someone got zinged.
Also, I fail to believe that any one man controls the economy. Bill Clinton didn't give us a good economy, the internet did, everyone knows that. And unless Al Gore really did invent the internet, his administration can't take credit for it.
That's really the biggest thing his administration is noted for. The biggest GOOD thing, that is.
I think it's bad that if the economy is going good the incumbent party usually wins, and if its bad, the opposing wins. No one seems to really control it at all. I mean, I haven't taken classes in it or anything, but that's how thing seem.
[ June 18, 2004, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by loveandpeace (Member # 6625) on :
what ever clinton did or got done while he was president, the thing that stands out in people's minds i think will always be that he lied to us. He swore he wouldnt lie, then lied. kinda tainting, isnt it?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
yes because all our presidents have told the truth except him.
Posted by loveandpeace (Member # 6625) on :
difference is he swore he was telling the truth
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Are dabbler and loveandpeace the same person?
Grammar and sentence structure, people!
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
quote: Grammar and sentence structure, people!
Pfft, Ralphie, that isn't a correct sentence!
This is Suneun on my laptop.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
D'oh! /edit
Still, I don't think you could have had Bill Clinton without Rush Limbaugh.
Cubans in the whitehouse :regurge:
[ June 18, 2004, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
quote:Pfft, Ralphie, that isn't a correct sentence!
Yeah, but I'm special.
I get away with things that you can't yet.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote: What were his big mistakes? Getting a bj...
The BJ was not a problem...lying under oath about having a sexual relationship with a state employee (who he had authority over) when he was being investigated for sexual harassment of another woman he had authority over is a rather big deal. If he did not want to admit to it, he could have refused to answer the question...and even after he lied, he went on TV and shook his finger at the camera and said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman” I can understand not wanting to admit to improper behavior…but to go on TV and insist you did not do it (as well as lying under oath).
People try to brush it off as getting a BJ, but if I did the same thing I would have been fired from my job, and so would most other people in this day in age.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Um, since FDR, hasn't the trend generally been Democrat=good economy, republican=bad economy? With maybe the exception of LBJ, b/c of vietnam which was the fault of 2 republicans and 2 democrats. You can blame it on a bunch of other factors, but the trend remains the same.
I think it's basically b/c communism is the perfect govt. in a perfect world, and the democratic party has the closest thing to communism for the real world...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It depends on what "is" means.
quote:Um, since FDR, hasn't the trend generally been Democrat=good economy, republican=bad economy? With maybe the exception of LBJ, b/c of vietnam which was the fault of 2 republicans and 2 democrats. You can blame it on a bunch of other factors, but the trend remains the same.
I think it's basically b/c communism is the perfect govt. in a perfect world, and the democratic party has the closest thing to communism for the real world...
Let's see...Carter, bad economy.
Reagan, half and half, with most of the bad caused by cleaning up the mess left over from Carter's presidency. (Note I didn't say the mess was caused by Carter).
Bush, a two-year recession, heightened by a war brought on by an aggressor.
Clinton, good economy except for the last two years. But let's not forget that the events at the heart of the corporate scandals happened during the Clinton presidency.
And of course, the balanced budgets happened once the Republicans took control of both houses.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think it's basically b/c communism is the perfect govt. in a perfect world, and the democratic party has the closest thing to communism for the real world...
In a perfect world, communism wouldn't be government, it would just be what people did. And no one would slack off even if their pay didn't decrease in response. In fact, in a perfect world communism wouldn't be necessary.
Dagonee
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
What would be so perfect about a world in which I had to work twice as hard as the next guy for the same quality of life?
Communism is the most unnatural system in the world, which is why it inevitably fails.
Now if we could only screw with genetics enough to where we could actually kill off the human spirit, maybe.
That said, I liked Clinton, too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nothing's cooler than infidelity and purjory!
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Hmmm...
Let us see,
George W. Bush led us into invading a soverign nation on the grounds that
A> Iraq had thousands and thousands of weapons of mass destruction.
B> Iraq and Al-queda were planning attacks together.
...BOTH TOTAL LIES...
but this doesn't bother the right, nor do they consider it lying.
Clinton lied about a blow job.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
You weigh the two against each other.
George W. Bush says that Jesus tells him to give tax cuts to Billionaires, while Clinton said the soundest economic policy was to tax the richest Americans.
Face it, Bill Clinton was a great president.
<T>
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I don't really like either of them. I don't think Bill Clinton was great, either. It's not the actions of the man that really get to me, even though there are a few of those, it's his personality.
[ June 19, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: But let's not forget that the events at the heart of the corporate scandals happened during the Clinton presidency.
Also, let us not forget G.W. Bush flying around on the Enron private jet to hundreds of campaign stops, or the 117 meetings Cheney and Bush had with Enron officials between Sept. and Oct. 2000 to work on a "Energy Policy".
Also, can we not forget in 3 years since the biggest CORPORATE meltdown in American History, NO ONE is in jail????
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i have yet to see anything that makes clinton out to be a good president posted on this thread. bush bashing does not make clinton out to be a good president. it really doesn't. just like it won't make kerry a good president. you actually have to lead the country in a positive direction. not put down the other guy.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Do you not remember what LIFE was like during Clinton's reign as President??????????
!!!!!!!!!PEACE AND PROSPERITY!!!!!
Those were the fruits of his labor.
!!!!!!!!!PEACE AND PROSPERITY!!!!!
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
no he had nothing to do with that really. generally, we see what an administration does during the next president's reign. his prosperity could more acurately be attributed to bush sr and reagan.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
gnixing.
Isn't it true that Bill Clinton is considered an honorary black man? And isn't it true that the state you live in has the least amount of black people in the United States?
It's almost safe to conclude that you'll never give a black man credit for anything.
Clinton had nothing to do with his presidency except the bad stuff, right? Right?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
isn't it true that for all you know i am a black man, and isn't it true that clinton is a white man. speaking about skin color, i don't consider clinton to be any more of a black man than an albino from sweden. when it comes to judging people, i'm about as color blind as it gets. what the HELL does being black have to do with ANYTHING? this is the 21st century.
all clinton did was the same as any president, follow the advice of his administration and perform te speeches for the public. the man at the helm is only as good as his council, to which clinton's council was pretty lame. the good from clinton's presidency was there, but too little. in fact, i can't think of anything noteworthy. the economy during those years was the by-product of years prior, not anything he did, just as our economy now wasn't caused by bush jr, just the by-product of the times before him.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: isn't it true that for all you know i am a black man
No. You live in Utah. You post on Hatrack.
Tell me which I am wrong about.
You are white. You are mormon. You don't like Bill Clinton. You like George W. Bush.
Which of these facts are untrue?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't know whether any of you would be interested, and some (or all) of you may consider this propaganda, but the trailer gives a good idea of an opinion or viewpoint about the Clinton Presidency: The Hunting of the President
I generally consider Bill Clinton to be a good president. I don't think one president's success is a result of the previous president's work.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
well, i'm not a big bush jr supporter. the man has his qualities, but has his problems too. i supported clinton when re-election time came, because dole scared me and clinton was the lesser of 2 evils. i have yet to learn of one of his ideas that make him a "great" person. he was a president, not the worst, but i have yet to see why people make such a fuss about him.
and, i still don't get your emphasis on race. colin powell would make an awesome president, and he really is black.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i saw that trailer and couldn't tell which side put it together. all propoganda and personally, whichever side created it, i think it is meant to brainwash you to their side of thinking.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Here's the deal.
Bill Clinton is cool. Bill Clinton is smart. Bill Clinton is wise.
And it is clear to me that Clinton had to depend on his council a lot less than Bush follows the way of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Clinton is a child of art and music, a child of peace, he stood for peace.
G.W. Bush stands for war and is a war president. During his administration, we have two new global wars, one just, one unjust.
Clinton taxed the rich and gave to the poor and the middle class, Bush taxes the poor and the middle class and gives to the rich. Clinton was a man of the people, Bush is a man of the Money families.
Clinton gave those in America peace and prosperity during his time.
<T>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wise??? Oh honey. *pat pat*
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: colin powell would make an awesome president, and he really is black.
I used to have total faith in Mr. Powell. Now I have great doubts, he gets kicked around like a rag doll during this administration, and it seems like he's only window dressing.
Powell is a smart man, but he has been rendered very weak.
I wish for Oprah.
Why do I make such an issue of race?
Race is a larger issue than abortion, taxes, or guns why are abortion, taxes and guns larger issues?
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
-Katharina-
your touch is so sweet.
One Gem of wisdom Bill Clinton taught to me was this...
"99.9% of all people who go into Prison will one day come back out into society."
Wow.
So why do we still torture our American Prisoners and basiclly treat a majority of them like they are less than human?
<T>
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
again. bush doesn't belong in this topic. putting down bush doesn't make clinton better or worse. clinton got our nation involved in deadly conflicts that were very unjust, the media just didn't blow them out of proportion. being in the poor-middle class, i have benefitted more from the recent tax cuts than anything that i recall during clinton's regime. but then, i have hard time calling a hike in taxes a "tax cut" which politicians have been doing for years. it's already been said, and i agree thouroughly, the prosperity during the clinton years is kudos to the internet boom. what did clinton do to promote peace? keep the terrorists laughing while he was in office? reagan/bush did the work with ussr/russia and china...
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
quote:why are abortion, taxes and guns larger issues?
abortion and guns... i don't know. gun rights are important, i believe (someday i hope to even get out and buy one.) abortion should be left to one's docter and one's priest. one's politician should stay out of one's business.
taxes however are probably the single most important issue in our country. it is the one thing that causes nations to rise and fall and is the cause of all the greed and corruption in government, including the US. and the funny thing is, neither side of the government wants it to change because that's how they stay rich.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
quote: bush doesn't belong in this topic. putting down bush doesn't make clinton better or worse.
Bush Jr. or Bush Sr.?
Which bush doesn't belong in this topic?
Either way your logic is really, really bad on this conclusion, because it would be like saying it would be WRONG to compare the Quarterback who came before Troy Aikman and the Quarterback who came after Troy Aikman in an anaylisis of how good Troy Aikman was as a football player.
The economy SUCKED for the majority of George Bush #1's 4 year duration as Prez, the economy SUCKED for the majority of George Bush #2's 4 year duration as Prez, the economy was GREAT during the majority of William Jefferson Clinton's 8 years as President.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
i don't believe either bush can be used to determine whether clinton was great or not. your analogy to the football quarterbacks isn't the best either. i think a better analogy would be if johnny got punched in the face by bill and then punched in the gut by george, whose better, bill or george.
as for the state of the economy during his presidency, what exactly was it that he did that made the economy so good... or was it something else that made life easier for the middle-upper class. for us low-middle class white mormons in utah, the economy was not all that great
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Here's a (unsurpisingly) biased description of the changes that occured with the economy while Clinton was president.
Highlights are: -lowest unemployment for the last three decades -lowest inflation rate since 1965 -median family income went from $41,691 to $46,737 -went from budget deficit to budget surplus
And please, if you're going to argue against this person's commentary, please provide statistics/data/opposing-article. Don't just say "that's not true" or "he wasn't responsible for that."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
His greatest contribution to the economy was getting a Republican Congress elected in '94.
First Republican Congress in 45 years, first balanced budget.
Seems pretty simple to me.
Dagonee
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Then please prove this statement to be false:
quote:In addition to the points above, it’s worth noting that his deficit reduction passage–which Republicans forecast would destroy the economy–passed without a single Republican vote, and after the Newt Gingrich-inspired "train wreck" budget fiasco of 1995, the Republicans never won a single budget battle. Not one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The budget "fiasco" of '95 changed the budgeting rules. Although the press credited Clinton with a win, the budgets after that were much, much different than the ones before.
Remember the Hillary health plan? Remember welfare reform, which Clinton adopted almost straight from the Republican platform?
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
though i'm not big on party politics, i think that is a great insight dagonee
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
It doesn't matter who's in congress if it's Clinton's bills being passed.
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
Dagonee.
Remember, folks, before you stamp a peace sign on Clinton, he waged his own preemptive wars.
quote:War against Serbia is unwarranted on strategic, legal and moral grounds. If air strikes take place, Serbia will be the fourth country Bill Clinton has bombed in the past seven months. That record is one of a trigger-happy administration that is creating an image of America as the planetary bully. Decent Americans need to make a stand when it has reached the point of a full-scale war of aggression against a country that has done us no harm.
Hmmm....
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the Clinton years exemplify how a split government can be quite a bit better than a unified one. Each side had stupid stuff, but both were reigned in by the influence of the other. Most of the best accomplishments during that period cannot be ascribed completely to one side or another, and attempts to do so are usually just partisanship. (Though I'd give much of the credit to the Senate republicans and comparatively little to the House republicans if we were to speak at a lower level than just the separate parties).
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:It doesn't matter who's in congress if it's Clinton's bills being passed.
It does if those are bills are different than they would have been with a Democratic Congress. I think fugu's last post is pretty much dead on.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Is there ever a totally good president?
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
No.
Unless, of course, I became president. Then I'd be perfect. Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
You know, I read an article the other day about how we're one of the only countries whose head of government and head of state/figurehead in one person. In England they have the queen and the PM, and in Israel they actually elect a president to be a figure head and then they have a prime minister who does the real stuff and whom they can bash.
I just think that's interesting. Because at one moment we want to deride the president, but at the same time, it feels wrong.
Posted by Erik Slaine (Member # 5583) on :
They all suck. The further away from your own community you get, the less influence you have.
Get involved with your local politics. There's nothing you can do about idiots in office. Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Unless you kill him...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ooh, jebus is on the watch list now! Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So your real stance, THOR (aside form the usual white Mormon Republicans are evil and stupid, I mean) is not that Clinton is cool, but that he's cooler than Dubya?
You have to look further than the incumbency to see the fruits of a president's labors. Please continue with your own brand of incoherent racism and bigotry now.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, can we not forget in 3 years since the biggest CORPORATE meltdown in American History, NO ONE is in jail????
I was rereading the thread and this one made me laugh out loud. There are simple felony drug possession cases on my docket that are over two and a half years old. You think it's easy to put a fraud case together when millions of documents have to be examined? Just in case you're getting impatient, however, Prosecutors to Seek Charges Against Lay.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Rakeesh, this is a passionate bit of shitte placing on your part pal. I realize that you like to demonize, slander and speak for others making them look as bad as possible, but nothing you said about me is true.
Posted by Salaam (Member # 5239) on :
I actually got the privledge to hear Clinton speak at Georgetown University and due to family conncection at Georgetown got to meet him personally. Hearing him speak and comparing what I hear Bush say in interviews is like comparing a Dickens novel to a short story by a kindergartner, and honestly, the kindergartner is probably a better writer than Bush. Clinton never stopped speaking because he couldnt think of something and there wasn't a single "like" "uh" "um" or other stall. He had deep insight on forign policies and it was an amazing experience. Meeting with him afterwards I realized that it wasn't just an alter-persona he put on when onstage, he actually speaks the same way and has the same poise when casually speaking. Comparing Bush to Clinton is a no contest. While Bush has done soem good things, he's also screwed over forign relations, the economy(although hes not the only responsible one), and put us into wars. Clinton wasn't perfect but he was far superior
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, THOR, it ain't slander if you regularly insult white Republican Mormons (and Christians who ain't you). Which you do. It's true, and you've been disciplined on this same forum to prove it.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
You don't have to know how much better a speaker Clinton was (which he was), or know how much smarter a person he was (which he was), to know that he was a better president (which he was). You need only look at the numbers. And I mean all the numbers.
By the way, that post calling Clinton an agressor made me laugh. Did you notice how no one held any big protest about those acts? Maybe it was because we were on the right side, and we didn't lose many (if any) soldiers to enemy action.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah. Because what happens in an eight-year period is due solely to that Presidency, right? What a crock. Look at all the numbers and then remember: they didn't happen in a vaccuum.
Posted by Promethius (Member # 2468) on :
No Clinton did not stumble over words when he spoke and Bush does. I would like to see how the people on this forum who criticize Bush for being a poor speaker would do when put in that situation. I do not think it is fair to criticize his intelligence on his public speaking ability. My uncle, who is involved in all sorts of genetics stuff such as mapping the human genome actually met and spoke with the president for an extended period of time. He said the president was a very intelligent and well spoken person contrary to what people perceive from his public speaking ability.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
LBJ was a terrible public speaker but he was a fantastic personal speaker. That's how he solidified so much support in congress.
EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the president has virtually no control over domestic policy. He can just veto and "propose" bills and budgets which congress can then dump on. For instance, the #1 thing Clinton wanted was health care reform, but due to consistent underestimation of cost (HUGE underestimation, btw) and miles of bureacracy, it lost its large public support and congress refused to pass it. The idea that he could control the economy is ludicrous not just because the economy is uncontrollable, but also because that's not one of his specified powers.
What we need to focus on is foreign policy, where Bush is very vulnerable, but keep in mind that Clinton had a very unstable foreign policy as well. The reluctance to enter into Kosovo (and there was a lot of that) certainly shook up Europe (people assume that Europe's standoffish position towards us immediately started when Bush entered office; it didn't. Kosovo first proved that the US was no longer interested in handling all of Europe's problems) and the reluctance to resolve our positions overseas (Somalia, the Embassy bombing, etc.) is a testemonial to the fact that up until recently America has largely ignored the rest of the world. We elect the President on domestic policy, the area he's specifically weak on, and then we judge him on how well we're doing domestically.
Hopefully this will be the first foreign-policy-dominated Presidential election in a while. Maybe the first in a long line.
[ June 21, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by FoolishTook (Member # 5358) on :
quote:By the way, that post calling Clinton an agressor made me laugh. Did you notice how no one held any big protest about those acts? Maybe it was because we were on the right side, and we didn't lose many (if any) soldiers to enemy action.
No, we bombed those countries instead, which meant US casualties were at a minimum. As for civilian casualties...
quote:Did you notice how no one held any big protest about those acts?
Yes, I did notice and was irritated by the inconsistencies. Apparently, the only wars that are wrong are the ones republicans start.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
This is a tradition for many presidents since Vietnam: the American people do not tolerate military losses at all. When we suffer casualties, we pull out. We pulled out of Somalia because of it, Reagan did the same when the marine barrack in Beirut was bombed, and we refused to commit ground troops in Kosovo because of it. One could argue that if we had, the civilian deaths from air strikes could have been minimalized. But when soldiers die, for whatever reason, the President is crucified. Many other countries are confused by this, because we are at once the most aggressive nation in the world, but we also are the most paranoid. This leads to erratic committments in other nations which is very unstable. We drop in, get shot up, public approval drops, and we pull out.
It doesn't matter if you agreed with Iraq or not, because that's just the truth. I expect Bush will be voted out of office on the issue, and even though I didn't really agree with Iraq at the start, I think pulling out now is a bad idea.
[ June 22, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Yeah... because right when those casualties in 1961-2 started rolling in, we pulled out right away in 1972. And we pulled out because of a measely 50,000 deaths! Whoopidee doo!
The reason there weren't protests was because they were UN actions. Clinton didn't bomb the countries, he cooperated with the UN. Because that's what we should do.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Interesting arguement, ArCHeR. You maintain that the US should become a sort of extension of the UN, not acting without its permission. Interesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The reason there weren't protests was because they were UN actions.
Take another look at what the U.N. approved before we bombed the Chinese embassy. No U.N. approval for that entire operation, because Russia was dead-set against it.
Dagonee Edit: and obviously I mean the operation that led to the bombing, not just the bombing itself.
[ June 21, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I said AFTER Vietnam. I didn't include it. My point was no President wants to get crucified like LBJ did when he DIDN'T pull out of Vietnam.
Am I making myself completely and utterly clear?
Stay civil. I wasn't obnoxious, there wasn't any reason for you to be.
[ June 22, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The reason there weren't protests was because they were UN actions. Clinton didn't bomb the countries, he cooperated with the UN. Because that's what we should do.
Well, first of all there were protests. Clinton did not HAVE to cooperate with the UN, and there were times he didn't-so you don't get to distance Clinton from it.
And most importantly, you say we should cooperate with the UN. Why? Any decision of real importance can be vetoed at any time by one of five nations: USA, Russia, China, France, and England, if memory serves. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council. That's a foolish amount of trust to be placing in an organization so governed, to say we should cooperate with them, period.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
While I agree with the theory, I don't like the 1/5 ratio. One self-serving nation can ruin the actions of four virtuous ones.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's my point, Book. And it's not going to change, either. Can you imagine China or France or Russia (and, to be fair, the USA or the UK) giving up that power?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
See, I dig that complaint about the UN. I see where it's coming from. But then, along comes the ICC which doesn't have a "security council" of any sort. This was done specifically to try and avoid the problems that the UN has seen. Of course, we all know that the US didn't ratify it and a large part of their complaint was that it was a body that didn't answer to anybody. *somebody* had to be in control. Again, I understand the worry. Who polices the police? I also understand that any loss of sovereignty gets the American people up in arms like nothing else.
I just wish the States would stop pretending that they want any sort of world authority, since they're clearly unwilling to submit to one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have the same wish, BtL...about everyone.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Everybody as in, all the countries that didn't ratify the ICC? I'll be fair, the US was hardly alone in its desire to stay out of it. And, I suppose, those that hope to use it to their own advantage.
I'm not going to try and pretend that the ICC is the be all and end all of an international body. It will have many of the same kinks as the UN did. There will probably be problems with corruption and there will be problems with political influence, just as there has been in every level of government anywhere, ever.
*shrug*
It's just a matter of whether you believe in it or not. If you don't, don't try and score political points by pretending you do. It just frustrates everyone.
Edit to add: So yes, I'm saying that I agree with you
[ June 22, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BtL,
Here's how I think of it: what does it mean to ratify when you know it's going to be toothless anyway? I feel the same way about many treaties Clinton signed. He *knew* they wouldn't be ratified and thus law for America, but scored big points just but affixing his (as a practical, law-enforcing matter) worthless signature to them.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Rakeesh (is this the first time we've talked to each other? I think it is. Marking it on my calendar!)
This was one of my biggest beefs with Bill. I honestly thought that he'd see things like Kyoto and the ICC through. I figured that since he signed them he actually *believed* in them. Hindsight being what it is I tend to agree with you, he was doing it just for the political brownie points. Which was an awfully shortsighted thing to do, as it would inevitably earn America no favors. Even without the non-UN-sanctioned action in Iraq the international community was set to be displeased with the States for breaking what they saw as important promises to the world.
I'm going to stop there because I really don’t think I understand what you're asking. Why bother signing toothless treaties? What do I think of those who do? Why even try?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bob,
It was a rhetorical question (and I'm surprised we've never argued about somethin' before. You seem quite the cool cat, though-for a Canadian . That was for Twinky).
What does it mean to sign a treaty you know will be toothless? Answer: little if anything. If I sign an agreement to do something on the condition enough other people sign the agreement, too, knowing that critical people won't sign the agreement...what does my signature mean? Nothing could be said for certain, in that case-and the most likely speculation isn't kind.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The UN is made up of mostly dictators. When you think of the UN you think of France, Germany and Russia, but it's mostly made up of 3rd world hellholes like Syria and Cuba.
Personally, I think we have the moral and cultural high ground against places that do not allow a vote and don't allow women to go outside without a male relative escort. And I don't want those people to have any say what-so-ever about what I do or my country does.
People prop up the UN like it's the last word on what is right and correct. But mostly it's countries jockeying for position. And that involves pulling us down to their economic, social, and moral level.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
A rhetorical question? Do people still do those? They're, like, so late 90s.
Here's the thing, though. If you sign in good faith (meaning you actually intend to go through with it. Or at least *try* to get it pushed through if your signature is essentially meaningless. *ahem* Billy) you're hoping the thing gets off the ground. I think that means a great deal, not necessarily because of any ideological reasons, but because hopefully once it does get off the ground you can work through the problems. In a way having Super-Power America not go along for the ride is a good thing because it does ensure the treaty will be toothless (insofar as an international governing organization goes, all other signings are a different issue). This makes it a much safer thing to experiment with. We had the League of Nations, which I think we can all agree fell short of expectations. That got tossed away and the United Nations grew up from the ashes and again, falls short of expectations. But I think is a good deal better than the LoN was. I can only hope that the ICC proves more effective at what it's supposed to be doing than the UN does. It allows for a lot of reasonably safe tinkering with the structure of a potentially ridiculously powerful governing body, which I think is a pretty unique way of going about putting together a government. Maybe it's the only way of setting one up. Of course, eventually everyone needs to come on board, but I'm willing to work with what I've got for now (the royal "I", that is).
Which is why I always hope these fledgling thangs get going. So we can take what works for it and eventually put together something that'll satisfy everyone/is powerful enough to rule the world with an iron fist (I'm looking at you, Illuminati)
In other news, pharmacy is eating my brain. I need Slash's turn so I can beat things with my beat stick. That is all.
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Clinton book sales are strong.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
That's not a particularly good argument. I don't even know what you're trying to argue.
You know that in order to get the book done his editor had to actually move in with him? And then it still wasn't finished on the deadline? I find that pretty funny.
[ June 24, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Hadn't heard that. Of course, he also wrote it himself. I think he's one of the first presidents to do that of late.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Don't they all do their memoirs?
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
generally they tell the story to a ghost writer...the president gets the credit even though they did not actually write it
Hillary did it that way as well. That way if you have something you want to say, but don't have the skill (or time) to actually deal with writing it yourself, you can still get published.
The fun of being a public figure
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, most are ghost written. (Bill) Clinton did not use a ghost writer.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
If Dubya doesn't use a ghost writer:
I alwais tryed 2 stai insid the lines in coledge] the coke lines that isdhahaha.
...
When I cowt sodam i was so happi i called dady and was lyk "We got um dady! Wanna com kik his as!?!?1
...
I dont lyk Cerry (when you spel it with a c its a girls name!) he wonts to blow up babys,
(No, I don't think he's that dumb in real life, but it makes a good joke, no?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For incredibly predictable and juvenile humor, sure does Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Don't feed the troll.
Posted by ArCHeR (Member # 6616) on :
Oh, come on! I'll take any Kerry jokes ya got! As long as they're funny...
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
"You cannot kill, imprison or occupy ever one of our adversaries." -wjc
he is so smart funny and cool
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
"Bill Clinton is the best Republican president president this county has ever had."
Michael Moore
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
Clinton is an awesome leader.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Was.
And only if we believe you.
Not that he was bad, but I don't like the way he tried to put one over on us.
He knew that it was illegal to lie under oath, and he lied not because it was about sex. He lied to mislead a proper investigation regarding sexual harassment.
It amazes me that some people make excuses for him by saying that the court had no right to ask about his personal life....he doesn't get to decide what questions were asked of him any more than an accused murderer or rapist gets to do so.
The timing may have been politically motivated, but even if it was (and there is no proof of it) he still has a moral and legal obligation, both as President and as a lawyer, to tell the truth!
And if he doesn't, then he should have paid a price for that. Not necessarily impeachment, but the same penalties any citizen would.
I liked him better than Bush (either of them), but that doesn't mean that he was a great man.
Or a great President.
Kwea
[ July 28, 2004, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"even if it was (and there is no proof of it)"
*polite cough* While I agree with the rest of your post, I think there's ample proof enough of this point.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Paula Jones brought her suit because she had been named as providing willing sex when Clinton was governor. Clinton's sexual history with people who worked for him was absolutely relevant to the case at hand.
Were there people assisting her for political reasons? Absolutely. Could she have brought the suit without them? Maybe not.
But her cause of action was sound enough to warrant discovery, and it's a sad day indeed when someone can't have recourse to the courts because the only people willing to help her were politically motivated.
Otherwise, we'd have to question most of the major Supreme Court decisions since Brown.
Dagonee
Posted by The Silverblue Sun (Member # 1630) on :
A blow job Vs. 15,000 dead Iraqis and 1000 american soldiers.
Hmmm.....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, because I said the two were equivalent. Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:EDIT: Also, keep in mind that the president has virtually no control over domestic policy. He can just veto and "propose" bills and budgets which congress can then dump on. For instance, the #1 thing Clinton wanted was health care reform, but due to consistent underestimation of cost (HUGE underestimation, btw) and miles of bureacracy, it lost its large public support and congress refused to pass it. The idea that he could control the economy is ludicrous not just because the economy is uncontrollable, but also because that's not one of his specified powers.
What we need to focus on is foreign policy, where Bush is very vulnerable, but keep in mind that Clinton had a very unstable foreign policy as well. The reluctance to enter into Kosovo (and there was a lot of that) certainly shook up Europe (people assume that Europe's standoffish position towards us immediately started when Bush entered office; it didn't. Kosovo first proved that the US was no longer interested in handling all of Europe's problems) and the reluctance to resolve our positions overseas (Somalia, the Embassy bombing, etc.) is a testemonial to the fact that up until recently America has largely ignored the rest of the world. We elect the President on domestic policy, the area he's specifically weak on, and then we judge him on how well we're doing domestically.
Hopefully this will be the first foreign-policy-dominated Presidential election in a while. Maybe the first in a long line.
Very good Book! Hit it on the head. Three cheers! Posted by Mr.Gumby (Member # 6303) on :
*looks at thread title* no he's not Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
They sure weren't, Dags. Clinton lost millions of his "little soldiers" for his indiscretion. Bush's military death toll isn't nearly so high Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
No, you those two are not equal.
President Clinton got impeached for his lies.
President Bush hopes to get reelected for his lies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course, the assumption that what you're referring to are indiscretions and lies is just that: an assumption.
One I tend to attribute to pandering and incompetence on behalf of Dubya and Cheney more than lying and indiscretion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why, why, WHY do Republican administrations always force me to decide whether I'd rather believe the president is incompetent or amoral?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You'd rather know off the bat which it is? I got kinda tired of that, myself.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Tom:
Thank you...but you never said which was your favorite....
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
Dagonee.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)