posted
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.
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 34 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 473 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting arguement, ArCHeR. You maintain that the US should become a sort of extension of the UN, not acting without its permission. Interesting.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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! Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why, why, WHY do Republican administrations always force me to decide whether I'd rather believe the president is incompetent or amoral?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
