towlie
Well-Known Member
I was refering to Serbia.
Bill Clinton Love Thread
- Thread starter Garden Knowm
- Start date
Chrisuperfly
Well-Known Member
Kosovo? Give me a break, first of all it wasnt an invasion, it was a joke. How do I know? I was there. I also seem to remember a couple of Apache pilots getting killed.
Just to clarify it was NATO bombing campaign/peace keeping mission not an invasion.
ViRedd
New Member
Med & Dank ...
For a couple of guys who claim to be "Independents," look carefully, you've both pissed all over your shoes in this thread in an attempt to support Bill Clinton. In that attempt, you are using the Clinton Machine's talking points. Independents my ass. Too funny.
Vi
For a couple of guys who claim to be "Independents," look carefully, you've both pissed all over your shoes in this thread in an attempt to support Bill Clinton. In that attempt, you are using the Clinton Machine's talking points. Independents my ass. Too funny.
Vi
ViRedd
New Member
Here's the good and the bad:
Clinton's Dubious Achievements
"The main thing to emphasize is so much of this progress had already been launched before Clinton became president," said Stephen Moore, president of Club for Growth, whose members favor former President Ronald Reagan's vision of limited government.
Moore, addressing nearly a dozen economic expansion advances claimed by Clinton, said the administration could take credit for only two fiscal policy successes.
"His trade policy ... promoting free trade, has been very effective," Moore said, pointing to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) as examples.
"Also, his monetary policy. He reappointed Alan Greenspan twice to the Federal Reserve Board ... and [gave] Greenspan the authority to do what he did."
Insofar as the administration laying claim to the "longest economic expansion in American history," the creation of "more than 22 million new jobs" and the "lowest unemployment rate in 30 years," as outlined on the White House Internet site, Clinton's level of involvement is exaggerated, said a scholar at Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"The economy had turned around before [former President George] Bush left office," said James DeLong, a senior fellow in the project on technology and innovation at the free-enterprise think tank. "But it was only after the Republicans took office in '94 that the stock market took off."
In fact, much of the economic growth experienced in the last few years was due to Reagan policies, implemented with a view toward the future, Moore said, or to the mettle of congressional Republicans who engaged in prolonged battles with Clinton to gain the approval of various measures.
Clinton Opposed Welfare Reform
and Capital Gains Tax Cut
"The balanced budget ... was quite a success," he said, "and the welfare reform bill, though Clinton vetoed it twice before he passed it. The capital gains tax cut of 1997 was a success, too, though he vetoed that twice, also."
Perhaps Clinton's greatest contribution to the perceived booming economy seen the past few years was adopting a hands-off approach, according to DeLong, and allowing such experts as his former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen the authority to implement their strategies.
(In contrast, critics are attacking President-elect Bush for delegating authority to his expert staff.)
"Clinton's original [economic policy] proposal would have inhibited the recovery" that began under the elder Bush, DeLong said. "But Clinton's people sort of kept him from doing those things that would have destroyed the economy."
The Clinton administration has also taken credit for overseeing the "lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years" – while ignoring statistics that show Americans shoulder the largest overall tax burden in years – and pushing through Congress the biggest tax increase in American history.
"That one sounds awfully funny to me," said DeLong, in reference to the latter claim. "People look at family income more than per capita income, so you can play all sorts of games with that."
But the economy is just one area covered in the White House release of Clinton's accomplishments.
Increasing School Choice?!
In education, the White House gives Clinton credit for raising standards, "increasing school choice," doubling "education and training investment," connecting "95 percent of schools to the Internet" and creating the "largest expansion of college opportunity since the G.I. Bill."
Those statements are misleading characterizations of achievements, said Michelle Easton, president of Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the former president of the Virginia Board of Education, except for those who want taxpayers to keep spending more on government schools.
"It sounds like they're just claiming credit for all sorts of absurd things," she said, explaining how many of those successes could be attributed to state and local policies, rather than federal.
"The federal government has nothing to do with [standards]," Easton said. "They might sling a little money ... but for the Clinton administration to claim credit for standards is just a total joke."
As in the case with the economic analysts, Easton said Clinton's greatest accomplishments in education were seen during the times he adopted a hands-off attitude so that state officials could then exert their influences upon local systems to demand increased standards.
She said the computer and college opportunity expansions were not convincing successes.
"It's not a big issue for me, but for a lot of conservatives, to force families whose children don't go to college to subsidize others is wrong," said Easton, explaining the controversy with Clinton's college financial aid increases.
"Also, in my mind, I would not be buying computers in schools where students can't read yet ... it's a matter of priority."
Morgan O. Reynolds, director of the criminal justice department for National Center for Policy Analysis, could not be reached for comment, but his essay posted on the organization's Internet site raised questions with Clinton's reported crime-fighting achievements.
Clinton's "comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties" and insistence for "more police" and "smart prevention" has culminated with a record that boasts a decline in overall crime for the past eight years, "the longest continuous drop on record," the White House reported.
What Reduced Crime
Analysts speaking to the issue in the past have said local and state enforcement techniques have generated the greater decreases in crime, as in New York, when "get tough" policies allowed police to arrest citizens for such infractions as spitting on the sidewalk. Criticized by many, including civil rights activists, the measures were also viewed as the base reasons behind New York City's lowered crime rates.
Reynolds did not address the importance of state and local strategies in his essay on crime, but instead debated a point not taken under consideration in the White House's claim of success.
While he agreed the country had seen a decrease in many types of crimes these past few years – since the 1980s, he said, because "as prisons filled, crime fell" – statistics indicating the numbers of juvenile offenders have continued to increase throughout the Clinton administration. Copyright CNSNews.com
Clinton's Dubious Achievements
[FONT=arial,helvetica]CNSNews.com[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica]Saturday, Jan. 13, 2001[/FONT]
A White House summation of the past eight years credits President Clinton with widespread accomplishments, but the report is bulging with misleading claims and misconceptions, according to a wide variety of policy analysts. "The main thing to emphasize is so much of this progress had already been launched before Clinton became president," said Stephen Moore, president of Club for Growth, whose members favor former President Ronald Reagan's vision of limited government.
Moore, addressing nearly a dozen economic expansion advances claimed by Clinton, said the administration could take credit for only two fiscal policy successes.
"His trade policy ... promoting free trade, has been very effective," Moore said, pointing to NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) as examples.
"Also, his monetary policy. He reappointed Alan Greenspan twice to the Federal Reserve Board ... and [gave] Greenspan the authority to do what he did."
Insofar as the administration laying claim to the "longest economic expansion in American history," the creation of "more than 22 million new jobs" and the "lowest unemployment rate in 30 years," as outlined on the White House Internet site, Clinton's level of involvement is exaggerated, said a scholar at Competitive Enterprise Institute.
"The economy had turned around before [former President George] Bush left office," said James DeLong, a senior fellow in the project on technology and innovation at the free-enterprise think tank. "But it was only after the Republicans took office in '94 that the stock market took off."
In fact, much of the economic growth experienced in the last few years was due to Reagan policies, implemented with a view toward the future, Moore said, or to the mettle of congressional Republicans who engaged in prolonged battles with Clinton to gain the approval of various measures.
Clinton Opposed Welfare Reform
and Capital Gains Tax Cut
"The balanced budget ... was quite a success," he said, "and the welfare reform bill, though Clinton vetoed it twice before he passed it. The capital gains tax cut of 1997 was a success, too, though he vetoed that twice, also."
Perhaps Clinton's greatest contribution to the perceived booming economy seen the past few years was adopting a hands-off approach, according to DeLong, and allowing such experts as his former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lloyd Bentsen the authority to implement their strategies.
(In contrast, critics are attacking President-elect Bush for delegating authority to his expert staff.)
"Clinton's original [economic policy] proposal would have inhibited the recovery" that began under the elder Bush, DeLong said. "But Clinton's people sort of kept him from doing those things that would have destroyed the economy."
The Clinton administration has also taken credit for overseeing the "lowest federal income tax burden in 35 years" – while ignoring statistics that show Americans shoulder the largest overall tax burden in years – and pushing through Congress the biggest tax increase in American history.
"That one sounds awfully funny to me," said DeLong, in reference to the latter claim. "People look at family income more than per capita income, so you can play all sorts of games with that."
But the economy is just one area covered in the White House release of Clinton's accomplishments.
Increasing School Choice?!
In education, the White House gives Clinton credit for raising standards, "increasing school choice," doubling "education and training investment," connecting "95 percent of schools to the Internet" and creating the "largest expansion of college opportunity since the G.I. Bill."
Those statements are misleading characterizations of achievements, said Michelle Easton, president of Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute and the former president of the Virginia Board of Education, except for those who want taxpayers to keep spending more on government schools.
"It sounds like they're just claiming credit for all sorts of absurd things," she said, explaining how many of those successes could be attributed to state and local policies, rather than federal.
"The federal government has nothing to do with [standards]," Easton said. "They might sling a little money ... but for the Clinton administration to claim credit for standards is just a total joke."
As in the case with the economic analysts, Easton said Clinton's greatest accomplishments in education were seen during the times he adopted a hands-off attitude so that state officials could then exert their influences upon local systems to demand increased standards.
She said the computer and college opportunity expansions were not convincing successes.
"It's not a big issue for me, but for a lot of conservatives, to force families whose children don't go to college to subsidize others is wrong," said Easton, explaining the controversy with Clinton's college financial aid increases.
"Also, in my mind, I would not be buying computers in schools where students can't read yet ... it's a matter of priority."
Morgan O. Reynolds, director of the criminal justice department for National Center for Policy Analysis, could not be reached for comment, but his essay posted on the organization's Internet site raised questions with Clinton's reported crime-fighting achievements.
Clinton's "comprehensive anti-crime strategy of tough penalties" and insistence for "more police" and "smart prevention" has culminated with a record that boasts a decline in overall crime for the past eight years, "the longest continuous drop on record," the White House reported.
What Reduced Crime
Analysts speaking to the issue in the past have said local and state enforcement techniques have generated the greater decreases in crime, as in New York, when "get tough" policies allowed police to arrest citizens for such infractions as spitting on the sidewalk. Criticized by many, including civil rights activists, the measures were also viewed as the base reasons behind New York City's lowered crime rates.
Reynolds did not address the importance of state and local strategies in his essay on crime, but instead debated a point not taken under consideration in the White House's claim of success.
While he agreed the country had seen a decrease in many types of crimes these past few years – since the 1980s, he said, because "as prisons filled, crime fell" – statistics indicating the numbers of juvenile offenders have continued to increase throughout the Clinton administration. Copyright CNSNews.com
towlie
Well-Known Member
I'm not surprised. Even potheads want to argue over semantics.
Invasion: 1. An act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army.
No one was killed in combat and I'm sorry there was actually a coalition that was commanded by a US General. I didn't realize world disdain was a requirement for my point. If you can’t see this as a reference to the current cluster fuck we're in then I'm going to have to confiscate some of your bud.
medicineman
New Member
said Stephen Moore, president of Club for Growth, whose members favor former President Ronald Reagan's vision of limited government..................... I think this about sums it up.
Chrisuperfly
Well-Known Member
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
hmmm....... and count 2 real wars to Bush's credit.
And why the pothead comment? I find it rediculous how people will post on a forum devoted to growing and smoking pot then start shit about the fact they can't carry a conversation on this board. Don't wan't to argue with a pothead go to a different fucking board.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
oh yeah, what was so funny?
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
LETS GO GET SADAMM .. he tried to kill my DADDY! (paraphrased)
which president said that to the United Nations?
which president said that to the United Nations?
Chrisuperfly
Well-Known Member
towlie
Well-Known Member
Hum… I read your response this morning and I thought I’d just let it go, but I’ve decided to go against my better judgment and respond one more time and then let it die.
Firstly, and I can’t believe I even am going to address this… but… There exists a method of diatribe in the American vernacular in which groups will refer to each other using words commonly used by their detractors. Queer Nation for example is a group of homosexuals that call themselves ‘Queer.’ Many blacks refer to each other with the dreaded ‘N-word.’ Many environmentalists refer to each other as tree huggers. Etc, etc. The point is that when doing so, you own the word and it is no longer an affective means of denigration.
If you’ll kindly re-read my statement, it basically states from one pot-head to another, “I expected more.” This is clearly not a derogatory statement about marijuana smokers. In my original rejoin to you, I stated that your arguments come across more as a debate over semantics than anything really of substance… and now we’re here. From what I’ve seen so far I am not surprised that you have taken offense when none was intended. I’ll remember your shallow skin when addressing you in the future. But I'm not really inclined to coddle you any further.
Secondly, I realize you just copied and pasted those statistics from a conservative spin site, so try to realize that this jab is not directed at you, but rather the creator (more coddling.) (Which I think the original author is Rush Limbaugh, but I’m too lazy to look up. Regardless, he was spewing similar rhetoric a while back.) My first point is that those are not combat deaths, but rather total death tolls (including suicides, heart attacks, cancer, etc.), and they conveniently end during the first term so as to downplay the true carnage of the Iraq war. If I told you that 911 didn’t matter because almost 4 times as many Americans die from cancer each week, I would rightfully come across as pretty heartless. The true statistics you should be debating are combat related casualties and injuries. According to Congressional Research Statistics they are as follows:
Clinton : (In all fairness, I don’t have the casualties from his conflicts and am too lazy to look them up.)
Restore Hope Somalia, 1992-1994: 43 Deaths
Uphold Democracy, Haiti , 1994-1996: 4 Deaths.
Bush:
Just in Iraq Alone (2003-2007): 3,804 deaths. 27,753 casualties.
Four years in Iraq & you’ve got 80 times the casualties as Clinton ’s entire 8 years. From 2001-2007 the global war on terror has cost 6,274 service men their lives from direct conflict or by fatal wounds.
Finally, I’m sorry you took my comments so bluntly little boy, and thank you for your service, as you certainly have more courage than I ever will. I was quite clear in my original post that Clinton is guilty of some serious fuck ups, just as every president is. Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs for example, but when all of his advisers suggested bombing Cuba , he overruled them all saying it would result in a global thermal nuclear catastrophe, and McNamara confirmed just that upon inspecting their silos. With 20/20 hindsight you’re always going to find errors, but all I’m asking is that the President be the smartest guy in the room. Clearly it was more a referral to Bush's Mid-East clusterfuck, and everyone got it but you.
I simply don't have the will to debate some overly self important individual who has the time and/or lack of a real life to debate whether or not a US lead topling of foreign government constitutes in your little world to be an invasion. It is what it is, and if you feel the need to debate it, I suggest jerking off in the corner until you find someone who gives a fuck.
Firstly, and I can’t believe I even am going to address this… but… There exists a method of diatribe in the American vernacular in which groups will refer to each other using words commonly used by their detractors. Queer Nation for example is a group of homosexuals that call themselves ‘Queer.’ Many blacks refer to each other with the dreaded ‘N-word.’ Many environmentalists refer to each other as tree huggers. Etc, etc. The point is that when doing so, you own the word and it is no longer an affective means of denigration.
If you’ll kindly re-read my statement, it basically states from one pot-head to another, “I expected more.” This is clearly not a derogatory statement about marijuana smokers. In my original rejoin to you, I stated that your arguments come across more as a debate over semantics than anything really of substance… and now we’re here. From what I’ve seen so far I am not surprised that you have taken offense when none was intended. I’ll remember your shallow skin when addressing you in the future. But I'm not really inclined to coddle you any further.
Secondly, I realize you just copied and pasted those statistics from a conservative spin site, so try to realize that this jab is not directed at you, but rather the creator (more coddling.) (Which I think the original author is Rush Limbaugh, but I’m too lazy to look up. Regardless, he was spewing similar rhetoric a while back.) My first point is that those are not combat deaths, but rather total death tolls (including suicides, heart attacks, cancer, etc.), and they conveniently end during the first term so as to downplay the true carnage of the Iraq war. If I told you that 911 didn’t matter because almost 4 times as many Americans die from cancer each week, I would rightfully come across as pretty heartless. The true statistics you should be debating are combat related casualties and injuries. According to Congressional Research Statistics they are as follows:
Clinton : (In all fairness, I don’t have the casualties from his conflicts and am too lazy to look them up.)
Restore Hope Somalia, 1992-1994: 43 Deaths
Uphold Democracy, Haiti , 1994-1996: 4 Deaths.
Bush:
Just in Iraq Alone (2003-2007): 3,804 deaths. 27,753 casualties.
Four years in Iraq & you’ve got 80 times the casualties as Clinton ’s entire 8 years. From 2001-2007 the global war on terror has cost 6,274 service men their lives from direct conflict or by fatal wounds.
Finally, I’m sorry you took my comments so bluntly little boy, and thank you for your service, as you certainly have more courage than I ever will. I was quite clear in my original post that Clinton is guilty of some serious fuck ups, just as every president is. Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs for example, but when all of his advisers suggested bombing Cuba , he overruled them all saying it would result in a global thermal nuclear catastrophe, and McNamara confirmed just that upon inspecting their silos. With 20/20 hindsight you’re always going to find errors, but all I’m asking is that the President be the smartest guy in the room. Clearly it was more a referral to Bush's Mid-East clusterfuck, and everyone got it but you.
I simply don't have the will to debate some overly self important individual who has the time and/or lack of a real life to debate whether or not a US lead topling of foreign government constitutes in your little world to be an invasion. It is what it is, and if you feel the need to debate it, I suggest jerking off in the corner until you find someone who gives a fuck.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
funny how reality and perspective and context can be seen as heartless by some...
i personally think it is just a really solid and interesting fact that should be said..
i take my hats off to you.... or is it "for you"
whatever
iloveyou
medicineman
New Member
GK, good to see you becoming more involved in the political forum.
closet.cult
New Member
i think bill clinton is a fraud. a crooked criminal. a puppet for the same capitalistic scum that gave bush the puppet presidency job.
please do not vote for his crooked criminal wife. please realize she will NOT end the war.
please do not vote for his crooked criminal wife. please realize she will NOT end the war.
medicineman
New Member
Wow, some intelligence has arrived. I can't see much relevance to superflys point of view, so tend to avoid debate with him, but he is entitled to his opinion. There will always be brainwashed hardheaded individuals that see in black and white and I have no time for that. The world is changing by the minute and we must change with it or be left on the dock. Political views of the past have a very limited place in todays volatile world. One must be able to "think outside the box". If more world leaders had this capability, there would be less need for war. We live on a very small planet in a very large universe. The primary function of mankind should be to recognise that this is all we have and we better start taking care of it. War should be a thing of the past. The problem is, as I see it, That you can hardly get three people to agree on anything. If there is a divine entity, I'd have to say, it's about time he exercises his authority and commands us to get along, sort of a fatwa for peace. I believe we could make this a pretty good place to inhabit if we really tried. I'm ready to be zapped with divine intervention.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
medicineman
New Member
So who will, certainly not Juliani? And Paul has a one in 300 million chance of being the nominee, So do you vote for Juliani (Bush with some brains) or a flip-flopping Hillary. They are all puppets for the crooked capitalistic scum, maybe paul a little less. You have to make a choice and anything but more Bush is my choice. I mean, is there any contender that will make a difference, only Paul, and they would assasinate him very fast, way before he could change the status quo, and blame it on some leftist idiot, they probably are grooming a scapegoat as we speak.
towlie
Well-Known Member
I feel bad getting into a semantic debate with Superfly. Thats why I try to avoid the political debates all together. When it comes to politics, two people can see exactly the same thing and argue as to the color of the sky. From what Ive seen Superfly is probably a really cool guy, and he has military experience so clearly hes a better man than Ill ever be. (I was in the Navy for 3 days before I DORd but thats another story.)
Maybe its because I live in a college town, so most of the people I smoke with are professors, so I had it in my head that smokers are typically more informed than your typical citizen Then I come to this site and see people posting that mans affect Global Warming is a farce and that Clintons military expenditures cost nearly as many lives as Bush and I think to myself theres no fucking way anybody believes this.
P.S. You wear multiple hats?
medicineman
New Member
Keep up the debate. As I've said, it is good to see some intelligence arriving on the scene. Bring some reason to the forum, thanks.
closet.cult
New Member
if it were not for Paul, i would not vote republican. Julie Ani, please. If you see the same thing as I with Paul, do your best to have him heard.
i don't know what will fix the problem, but clinton and bush are on the same team, if you hadn't heard. if you don't want another bush, please don't vote for this woman.