Actually one of my main critiques of Clinton was his lack of effort in Bosnia and Kosovo - letting a genocide and ethnic cleansing occur up until the point when it could be advantageous as a PR mission within his own political career. Clinton was all image and charisma and very little political clout. Not to mention the obvious disgrace he did to the role by getting his fuck on in the oval office. To say he was "one of America's best leaders since WW2" is a joke. He was a TV personality that enacted very little meaningful political change.Jay wrote:
Yes, because he took half measures and cared more about PR than he did about doing the job right.
Got us involved in Somalia -> escalated a peacekeeping mission and then pulled out as soon as bad press started rolling in regarding the Blackhawk Down stuff.
USS Cole rammed, US embassies bombed -> launch cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.
About the only thing he did right (and late I might add) was the war with Serbia over Bosnia and Kosovo.
I joined the military during the final few months he was in office and the utter disgust, hatred, and levels of mistrust that pretty much every person that served during his administration felt was rather amazing.
All that said, he did do some things right while he was in office. He had to face a conservative backlash that put people like Newt Gingrich in power, and he dealt with the Lewinsky bullshit, but he can be credited for some very significant reforms that set the country on the right track fiscally. It's a shame that his two successors have abjectly destroyed that legacy.
What happened in Bosnia was the fault of NATO at large and moreso European allies. Though the public does like to point the finger at the US because for the last 50 years we've come to expect that the yanks will compensate for any (obvious) shortcomings we may have. Luckily Obama 'did the right thing' in Libya else that might've dragged on and become a disaster as well.
Most of his 'meaningful' change concerned domestic matters though in foreign policy he did pretty good as well. The troubles as jord pointed out, camp david accords etc.
His worst fuck up was that he got a blowjob from someone other than his wife. Sadly you can't really say the same for most of the other post-ww2 presidents.
Most of his 'meaningful' change concerned domestic matters though in foreign policy he did pretty good as well. The troubles as jord pointed out, camp david accords etc.
His worst fuck up was that he got a blowjob from someone other than his wife. Sadly you can't really say the same for most of the other post-ww2 presidents.
inane little opines
It's rather telling that Clinton was able to speak at the DNC, while George Bush wasn't even able to be named by the Republicans in theirs, lest the public remember what happened the last time they had a GOP president.
What about really pushing the covert interrogation and detainment that Bush's administration turned into a fine art? What about the healthcare drive that Hilary was famous for being a bulldog over back then? He pushed nothing on healthcare. He pushed no social reforms. He was impotent against the Republican Congress (who actually pushed more healthcare change than he did). His other domestic 'plus' points, i.e. the rise of the economy and the picking up of jobs, was all driven by the 90's dotcom boom and had little to nothing to do with his policy or influence. He lucked out over a technology-driven economic boom (or rather a bubble, in some senses). There were no major problems with resources (i.e. fuel/gas crises) nor any other major external economic challenges. He had it easy; his policy was ineffectual. The guy was a charismatic face that lied to his own people and tried to take credit for a bunch of 'goods' that had nothing to do with his presidency. Furthermore he was impeached. Not many post-ww2 presidents can say that either, can they? The only president to come close to impeachment was Dickie Nixon, who was a paranoid wreck of a man who didn't even trust his own people. Enviable competition in the corrupt administration contest. Wow, Clinton, what a domestic powerhouse.Shocking wrote:
What happened in Bosnia was the fault of NATO at large and moreso European allies. Though the public does like to point the finger at the US because for the last 50 years we've come to expect that the yanks will compensate for any (obvious) shortcomings we may have. Luckily Obama 'did the right thing' in Libya else that might've dragged on and become a disaster as well.
Most of his 'meaningful' change concerned domestic matters though in foreign policy he did pretty good as well. The troubles as jord pointed out, camp david accords etc.
His worst fuck up was that he got a blowjob from someone other than his wife. Sadly you can't really say the same for most of the other post-ww2 presidents.
Yes, impeached for getting a blowjob. If we were to compare him to the company he's in because of that I'd say the watergate scandal is a little more serious. It has no bearings whatsoever on how he functioned as a president. Yes, he did luck out on the state of the economy but so did Reagan and any other president that was in office during an economic boom. Detractors always like to point this out because of (rather stupid) supporters who somehow directly connect presidents to periods of economic growth. At least he didn't live by the faux virtue of 'tax cuts for the rich' and actually used the boom to help increase average and middle income, living standards, reduce poverty and create a budget surplus over the years. He did good. People are always far too quick to dismiss presidents simply because they served in fortunate times (or, otherwise, scorn them because they happen to serve during recessions and other crises).
And yes, he was impotent against the republican congress especially on healthcare matters. What he did push got rejected.
On the subject of torture, it would be naive to believe that only the US engaged in this activity and that Clinton is to blame for its increased use. With the surge of terrorism intelligence services all around the globe seem to have made (increasing) use of rather questionable methods in their interrogations. I can't really ascribe it to his presidency. It's a difficult issue. The CIA seems to be least capable of keeping quiet about it though.
And yes, he was impotent against the republican congress especially on healthcare matters. What he did push got rejected.
On the subject of torture, it would be naive to believe that only the US engaged in this activity and that Clinton is to blame for its increased use. With the surge of terrorism intelligence services all around the globe seem to have made (increasing) use of rather questionable methods in their interrogations. I can't really ascribe it to his presidency. It's a difficult issue. The CIA seems to be least capable of keeping quiet about it though.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-09 13:54:46)
inane little opines
And should a good president really be determined by whether or not he brought ground-breaking change to a country? Clinton simply nudged the US in the right direction and wasn't involved in any fuck ups with serious legacies.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-09 13:58:57)
inane little opines
The lack of meaningful legislation is actually kind of the reason a lot of people look back on his presidency fondly. He didn't try to change the country. He didn't enter any lasting wars. Instead he oversaw an effort to deregulate portions of the economy, a loosening of drug laws and the drug war, and saw the country edge towards a balanced budget for the only time in my lifetime. It was precisely because Hillary got her shit pushed in so early in Clinton's first term as president that he can be seen in a good light.Shocking wrote:
What happened in Bosnia was the fault of NATO at large and moreso European allies. Though the public does like to point the finger at the US because for the last 50 years we've come to expect that the yanks will compensate for any (obvious) shortcomings we may have. Luckily Obama 'did the right thing' in Libya else that might've dragged on and become a disaster as well.
Most of his 'meaningful' change concerned domestic matters though in foreign policy he did pretty good as well. The troubles as jord pointed out, camp david accords etc.
His worst fuck up was that he got a blowjob from someone other than his wife. Sadly you can't really say the same for most of the other post-ww2 presidents.
He also had the good fortune to follow one, and be followed by two, complete dipshits, so he comes off smelling like a rose by comparison.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Really? I'd say they're equal. Breaking and entering, whatever, Nixon was thrown out of office because he lied to the American public when asked about it. Same reason Clinton nearly was.Shocking wrote:
Yes, impeached for getting a blowjob. If we were to compare him to the company he's in because of that I'd say the watergate scandal is a little more serious. It has no bearings whatsoever on how he functioned as a president. Yes, he did luck out on the state of the economy but so did Reagan and any other president that was in office during an economic boom. Detractors always like to point this out because of (rather stupid) supporters who somehow directly connect presidents to periods of economic growth. At least he didn't live by the faux virtue of 'tax cuts for the rich' and actually used the boom to help increase average and middle income, living standards, reduce poverty and create a budget surplus over the years. He did good. People are always far too quick to dismiss presidents simply because they served in fortunate times (or, otherwise, scorn them because they happen to serve during recessions and other crises).
And yes, he was impotent against the republican congress especially on healthcare matters. What he did push got rejected.
On the subject of torture, it would be naive to believe that only the US engaged in this activity and that Clinton is to blame for its increased use. With the surge of terrorism intelligence services all around the globe seem to have made (increasing) use of rather questionable methods in their interrogations. I can't really ascribe it to his presidency. It's a difficult issue. The CIA seems to be least capable of keeping quiet about it though.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Jeb 2016!Jay wrote:
He also had the good fortune to follow one, and be followed by two, complete dipshits, so he comes off smelling like a rose by comparison.
He was also preceded by plenty of dipshits. Don't take my words on him being one of the better post-WW2 presidents as meaning that he was a visionary genius. No. He was dealt a good hand and did quite well.
Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-09 14:05:37)
inane little opines
Best president post-WW2 was Eisenhower. Dude played golf instead of trying to inflict his morals or ideals on the rest of us.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
and built infrastructure, and had the highest tax rates in the 20th century. today's republicants would run him out of town.Jay wrote:
Best president post-WW2 was Eisenhower. Dude played golf instead of trying to inflict his morals or ideals on the rest of us.
Completely agree. He also oversaw the moon exploration program which culminated into the moon landing. There's quite a few good things about Eisenhower.
inane little opines
Highest rate was actually 94% under FDR, but it was close. I don't view that as a plus though. You can't balance the budget just by taxing the wealthy, and those wealthy would've been paying the 25% capital gains rate anyway.13urnzz wrote:
and built infrastructure, and had the highest tax rates in the 20th century. today's republicants would run him out of town.Jay wrote:
Best president post-WW2 was Eisenhower. Dude played golf instead of trying to inflict his morals or ideals on the rest of us.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Nixon is an underappreciated president.
FDR, Kennedy and Reagan are vastly overestimated presidents.
Nixon did a great job on China.
Nixon did a great job on China.
inane little opines
He instituted price controls and destroyed the last vestiges of a monetary standard. Fuck Nixon.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
gold standard lol
Notice how spending deficits explode every time we're off a standard? Yeah.Macbeth wrote:
gold standard lol
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
[ ] that is the only thing that matters
It is incredibly boring.Ty wrote:
These dick-measuring contests bore me. Keep to the topic.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
so i herd clinton was a pretty cool guy, didn't get involved in stopping genocides and doesn't afraid of republicans.
State university health care insurance is a grand $300 that you can get waived. You don't need a meal plan if you aren't living on campus.Jay wrote:
It paid for the meal and medical plans I was forced to buy by state law and which isn't covered by the GI Bill. Wtf do you care anyway?Macbeth wrote:
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/suny-maritime-2853
Is the tuition at the school only $6000 a year? Your G.I. bill should have covered all of that including books. Pell Grants pay out $6000 a year...
Where you just pocketing the Pell Grant money?
I am just wondering what you were doing with all that free money the government was giving you.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6977
SUNY Maritime is pretty well known.
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6977
State University of New York
ON TOPIC:
Who should I vote for and why?
ON TOPIC:
Who should I vote for and why?