[villalobos]

with his wisdom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o_WCVB/1649387

Oh but wait, no, he got a bj, he is therefore evil.


Villa

[macvillage.net]

Yep... get a hummer, and somehow... that effects your ability to discuss medicare.

Funny how your penis makes so many important decisions.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Funny how your penis makes so many important decisions.

With Bill, I wonder how many of his decisions WERE made with his penis.

I don't think that getting a bj effected his ability to discuss anything. He certainly hasn't stopped running his mouth since he left office. What DID effect him, in my mind, was the fact that he has an inability to tell the truth.

As an ex-President, he can discuss policy all he wants. Hell, he sleeps with a Senator (well, that's speculation) so he SHOULD have more access to public policy than the average ex-President. (Besides the President's own father - who tends to stay out of it.)

His comments about regarding the current administration (while not named) "stifling" debate are humorous, as anyone who spoke out against his policies got an IRS audit every year. Same shoe, different foot.

[Lerkfish]

-

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

Thanks for you input Lerk.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
With Bill, I wonder how many of his decisions WERE made with his penis.

Well, with Dubya, at least we KNOW that all decisions are made by a Dick.

-s*

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, with Dubya, at least we KNOW that all decisions are made by a Dick.

-s*

[villalobos]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, with Dubya, at least we KNOW that all decisions are made by a Dick.

-s*

villa

[moki]

Originally posted by villalobos:
with his wisdom.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...o_WCVB/1649387

Oh but wait, no, he got a bj, he is therefore evil.

I believe it was the obstruction of justice charges that had people more concerned.

Regardless, I was thinking about this the other night. I can't think of a damned thing Clinton did during his 8 years at the helm. Welfare reform is about it, and even that wasn't entirely effective.

He talked a lot, to be sure, but what did he do exactly? The failed diplomacy with North Korea. Lobbed some missiles into Afghanistan and missed bin Laden. Decry Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and bombed Iraq in 1998.

I'm not trolling here, I'd really like my memory jogged -- what did this man do that was memorable? Sure, the economy was good, but Clinton had nothing to do with that.

[moki]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, with Dubya, at least we KNOW that all decisions are made by a Dick.

Sad, untrue cheapshots don't do much to enhance the credibility of opinions from Europe on matters in the US. I'm still amazed at how much people in Europe liked Clinton, when in the US he was not particularly liked, and never got a majority vote.

[thunderous_funker]

As someone who felt horribly betrayed and sold out by the Clinton administration, It hurts me to admit that I think he hit the nail on the head when he said:

"I did not agree with the position that the French government took. But I was stunned at the level of demonization of France simply because they disagreed with us on how the U.N. inspection process should play out. And then it was almost as if no one could debate it,"

He's right. A real low point for Americans, the public as well as politicians.

Nationalism does terrible things to clear thinking.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
Sad, untrue cheapshots don't do much to enhance the credibility of opinions from Europe on matters in the US. I'm still amazed at how much people in Europe liked Clinton, when in the US he was not particularly liked, and never got a majority vote.

amazing how you could take it so seriously. in case you missed it: it was a joke.

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
With Bill, I wonder how many of his decisions WERE made with his penis.[/B]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Well, with Dubya, at least we KNOW that all decisions are made by a Dick.[/B]

so anyway, we didn't vote for clinton overhere, and you're amazed that he was popular overhere?! what?? i thought you guys had democracy. you know, people vote and then someone gets elected because the majority voted for him? are you telling me both clinton and bush came to power without a majority? doesn't do much to enhance the credibility of opinions from the us on matters in europe. blah.

and it almost sounds like you put the blame on europe that clinton got elected...

added: let's apply a little logic here, clinton didn't get a majority vote and therefore you are amazed he was polular in europe? now, bush didn't get a majority vote and therefore you are amazed he isn't popular overhere.

hmm? hey, don't you think we have improved?

[moki]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
"I did not agree with the position that the French government took. But I was stunned at the level of demonization of France simply because they disagreed with us on how the U.N. inspection process should play out. And then it was almost as if no one could debate it,"

He's right. A real low point for Americans, the public as well as politicians.

Let us not forget the opportunistic politicians in the EU (Schroder, Chirac, etc.) who were quick to capitalize on the same thing. I honestly believe that the politicians in the EU who want a strong centralizes EU government cynically played this crisis like a fiddle, hoping to capitalize on FUD-mongering re: America.

[moki]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
and it almost sounds like you put the blame on europe that clinton got elected...

Clinton seems to me to be quite a popular US president in the eyes of people in Europe. People in Europe seem to like him, for some unknown reason; that's what I was commenting on.

Meanwhile I can't think of anything positive Clinton actually did, and there were a number of massive failures.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by moki:
Clinton seems to me to be quite a popular US president in the eyes of people in Europe. People in Europe seem to like him, for some unknown reason; that's what I was commenting on.

Meanwhile I can't think of anything positive Clinton actually did, and there were a number of massive failures.

yeah so how did he become president in the US? for unknown reasons? because he was unpopular in the US? sorry i don't understand your commenting.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by moki:
I can't think of a damned thing Clinton did during his 8 years at the helm. Welfare reform is about it, and even that wasn't entirely effective.

He talked a lot, to be sure, but what did he do exactly? The failed diplomacy with North Korea. Lobbed some missiles into Afghanistan and missed bin Laden. Decry Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and bombed Iraq in 1998.

I'm not trolling here, I'd really like my memory jogged -- what did this man do that was memorable? Sure, the economy was good, but Clinton had nothing to do with that.

Maybe you should give him credit for that. He did not intervene in the economy since things were pretty rosy. I thought conservatives would appreciate that type of behavior. Heck, he did not even go into a spending spree, unlike so many states. I remember in these years how a friend of mine was telling me that if states were doing so well it/'s because so many of them had republicans governors.... We can see where these states are at now.

So the poor guy had nothing to really. As well enjoying his time in the Oval office

villa

villa

[zigzag]

Originally posted by moki:
I believe it was the obstruction of justice charges that had people more concerned.

Regardless, I was thinking about this the other night. I can't think of a damned thing Clinton did during his 8 years at the helm. Welfare reform is about it, and even that wasn't entirely effective.

He talked a lot, to be sure, but what did he do exactly? The failed diplomacy with North Korea. Lobbed some missiles into Afghanistan and missed bin Laden. Decry Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and bombed Iraq in 1998.

I'm not trolling here, I'd really like my memory jogged -- what did this man do that was memorable? Sure, the economy was good, but Clinton had nothing to do with that.

It's a reasonable question. I don't want to overstate the case in the other direction, but in addition to the welfare initiative, he passed a controversial tax bill, he stood up to and defeated Newt Gingrich on the budget, he did (IMO) an admirable job of managing the budget, he presided over an extremely healthy (actually, over-heated) economy, he presided over some successful (and some not-so-successful) military operations, he was a highly respected international figure, NAFTA, etc. He presided in peacetime, so he couldn't take credit for any major military victories, but that's not necessarily his fault. Some of his foreign policy initiatives might seem misguided in hindsight, but ask yourself whether either of the Bushes would've done differently at that point in time. He also undertook some failed initiatives (health care, gays in the military), but that's part of the game. I'm sure there are historians around who could do a better job on the details, pro or con.

As for the economy, while Presidents can't necessarily control long-term cycles, they do have an influence via tax policy, fiscal policy, monetary policy, appointments, etc. If it weren't so, then we should assume that Reagan had no impact and that Bush's rhetoric is completely dishonest. If Clinton did nothing more than steer a steady ship, that's creditworthy - another person might have sunk it.

He also moderated the Democratic Party, which isn't a presidential achievement but which I regard as an indirect service to the country (I know that thunderous would disagree). I wish he had undertaken much stronger environmental initiatives among other things, and I wish he weren't a borderline sociopath, but in his official capacity I think he did a good if not heroic job. Had it not been for 9/11, I suspect that the current administration would have had a quieter run so far than Clinton did - Dubya even ran on a hands-off foreign policy platform.

You imply (in other posts) that his election was somehow accidental and even state that he wasn't well-liked. But he defeated an incumbent, was re-elected, and maintained public support through an impeachment proceeding - apparently he was liked well enough.

I'm not here to champion him (although I voted for him), I'm just trying to answer your question. Of course, I've learned not to have high expectations - if a guy can get out of office in this country without being assassinated or causing a major depression, he's probably doing pretty well.

[Axo1ot1]

Originally posted by villalobos:
Oh but wait, no, he got a bj, he is therefore evil.

If getting a BJ is evil, then I'm the Prince of Darkness

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by moki:
Sad, untrue cheapshots don't do much to enhance the credibility of opinions from Europe on matters in the US. I'm still amazed at how much people in Europe liked Clinton, when in the US he was not particularly liked, and never got a majority vote.

Well according to a poll the BBC are doing on 'The Greatest American' Bill Clinton is ranking bottom right now out of:

Bob Dylan,
Benjamin Franklin,
Thomas Jefferson,
Martin Luther King,
Abraham Lincoln,
Franklin D Roosevelt,
Homer Simpson,
Mr T,
George Washington

(Homer Simpson is currently at the top!)

So it doesn't seem Clinton is very popular in europe either.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
...

(Homer Simpson is currently at the top!)

Well he certainly gets my vote!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
he was a highly respected international figure, NAFTA, etc.

Hmm. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush. Clinton got to sign it and (very much to his credit) steered it through the ratification process, but it wasn't his treaty.

Clinton did have some foreign policy successes: his Administration supported Senator Mitchell's negotiations in Northern Ireland. Arguably, that process couldn't have gone anywhere without the party's willingness to talk, but still, it is credible. Clinton also pushed the enlargement of NATO and forced things toward resolution on Bosnia, and (very beletedly), Kosovo. In the cases of NATO enlargement and Kosovo, he did them both in the face of deep opposition from Russia, and in a sense, we are still paying for that. But he was still probably right on the issues.

But I think in some respects, Europeans (lead by their media) liked Clinton because he was an American who could be reliably trusted to not get too far out in front of European elite opinion. Or at least, not to say anything they would find offensive. In other words, even when he was telling them no, he did so while giving lip service to their values. For example, the Clinton Administration opposed the land mine treaty, Kyoto, and the ICC, but each time he said the US wouldn't participate, he said how much he really wanted to join them, and what a committed multilateralist he was, and how it was just because of these little technical issues . . . yadda, yadda.

In fact, the issues that stuck in Clinton't craw were never small or technical. They were just as fundamental to Clinton as they still are to Bush. It is just that Clinton knew (to put it bluntly) how to lie about it in a way that would appeal to an audience that he cared about, and that Bush basically doesn't. Clinton played to a domestic audience who also have a different set of priorities and this, of course, makes a difference to his delivery. Politically, that audience is more in tune with mainstream European opinion. But on the substance, Clinton's foreign policy wasn't so different from Bush, or the previous Bush Administration. It is just that his delivery was softer and more apologetic.

I think that a final aspect can't be underestimated. The tenor of the 1990s in international affairs was more peaceful-seeming. I'm saying this in hindsight, and I'm saying this without blaming Clinton (because I'm not sure anyone else would have done differently), but a number of things got deferred during the Clinton years that we are now dealing with - Al-Queda, Iraq, North Korea. Those issues were there, but they weren't on the front pages for much of the decade - at least, not in the way they are now. It is natural that people would look back on apparently calm times with nostalgia when compared to turbulent times. Even when the apprent calm was bought at the cost of greater turbulence later.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Hmm. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush. Clinton got to sign it and (very much to his credit) steered it through the ratification process, but it wasn't his treaty.

Right - I didn't meant to suggest that he was solely responsible for it. Frankly, I couldn't remember all the details, and was hoping a historian would come along and help out.

It's nice to be able to discuss Clinton, pro and con, calmly. Difficult to do, especially with all the buzz going on about Hillary - they might as well change the name of FoxNews to HillaryNews. Makes one wonder what life would be like if Nancy Reagan had become a Senator and potential presidential candidate.

[yakkiebah]

so clinton and bush didn't get a majority vote. and now clinton and bush had basically the same policies aswell. interesting combination, you start to wonder why one would vote in the first place...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Makes one wonder what life would be like if Nancy Reagan had become a Senator and potential presidential candidate.

Stocks in astrology would have soared.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Right - I didn't meant to suggest that he was solely responsible for it. Frankly, I couldn't remember all the details, and was hoping a historian would come along and help out.

This is for zigzag -- he's probably the only one who would be interested in this piece of trivia.

Today at work I was flipping through a U.S.C.A.A.N. legislative history and I happened to notice a little piece tucked in the 1979 Trade Act. It authorized money to study a possible future free trade pact with Canada and Mexico. I had absolutely no idea NAFTA had roots that old!

[zigzag]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Today at work I was flipping through a U.S.C.A.A.N. legislative history and I happened to notice a little piece tucked in the 1979 Trade Act. It authorized money to study a possible future free trade pact with Canada and Mexico. I had absolutely no idea NAFTA had roots that old!

It makes sense - they were hoping to expand the market for Billy Beer.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by moki:
I believe it was the obstruction of justice charges that had people more concerned.

Regardless, I was thinking about this the other night. I can't think of a damned thing Clinton did during his 8 years at the helm. Welfare reform is about it, and even that wasn't entirely effective.

He talked a lot, to be sure, but what did he do exactly? The failed diplomacy with North Korea. Lobbed some missiles into Afghanistan and missed bin Laden. Decry Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and bombed Iraq in 1998.

I'm not trolling here, I'd really like my memory jogged -- what did this man do that was memorable? Sure, the economy was good, but Clinton had nothing to do with that.

The tax bill he pushed in 1993 had a lot to do with the good economy leading to budget surpluses and increased foreign investment. Huge and growing govt. debt is not a good thing.

He also pushed for peace and had some success along with failures but at least he sincerely tried.

Most importantly he presided over a time when real income growth for lower and middle income workers began to grow. He cared about people that were not millionaires and tried a little bit to help them.

This all leads to what he did NOT do (as compared to the current president). He did not sell out regulatory agencies to wealthy oil interests (as much). He protected a woman's right to choose. He did not sign intrusive and unconstitutional patriot act type legislation. He did not give himself a tax cut/raise. He helped control run away govt. spending (which Bush contributes to).

Remember the last big news story in Clinton's presidency was about shark attacks! Now we have anthrax (perp not found), Ossama (not found), weapons of mass destruction (not found), Afghanistan (slipping back into anarchy) North Korea threatening every couple of weeks to nuke Japan, high terror alerts everytime someone questions Bush policies, 752 innocent people held for three months in Cuba, massive Haliburton contracts, arsenic in the drinking water, thousands of acres of wilderness lost to weathy industry types, secret meetings with Enron execs to determine energy policy, public airways handed over to monopolistic media companies against 95% of Americans wishes, record deficits, record debt, right-wing judges way out step with the American mainstream.

Really! It's like the old curse - "May you live in interesting times."