Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2008-04-19 10:54:34
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hey, I agree that Carter sucked.

He's a good person (mostly philanthropy), but he was a terrible president.  He's kind of the opposite of Clinton in that way.
Why is Clinton a bad guy?
Clinton was a good president, but his personal life showed his darker side.  He has a very dysfunctional marriage, he's made some pretty sketchy deals (as Whitewater showed us), and his corporate connections were part of what inspired Michael Moore to say, "Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had."

If you look at Clinton's economic policies, he was basically a moderate Republican.  The good part of this was that he started to decrease the size of government.  The bad part was that he promoted so-called free trade agreements at the expense of American jobs.

He was certainly better than Bush, but he was nowhere near as moral of a person as Carter was.  Granted, Carter proved that being moral in a naive sort of way does not lead to good policy decisions.  Clinton never had any problems with "moral flexibility", but this is actually an asset when it comes to being president.
2008-04-19 10:54:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

Braddock wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

When I say support the Shah I don't mean crossing the line. Instead of rubbing elbows with Ortega while he was bringing Marxism to Nicaragua he should have been vocalizing his support for and extending relations with the moderates in Iran.
Is it not the business of other countries to figure out what system of Government or leader they want for themselves?
Tis why I said not crossing lines. I meant trade policies and such with friendly government. It's called diplomacy, every country in the word acts in their bests interest. The way they act (actions) is what's important.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-19 12:15:29
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6757|Argentina

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Hey, I agree that Carter sucked.

He's a good person (mostly philanthropy), but he was a terrible president.  He's kind of the opposite of Clinton in that way.
Why is Clinton a bad guy?
Clinton was a good president, but his personal life showed his darker side.  He has a very dysfunctional marriage, he's made some pretty sketchy deals (as Whitewater showed us), and his corporate connections were part of what inspired Michael Moore to say, "Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had."

If you look at Clinton's economic policies, he was basically a moderate Republican.  The good part of this was that he started to decrease the size of government.  The bad part was that he promoted so-called free trade agreements at the expense of American jobs.

He was certainly better than Bush, but he was nowhere near as moral of a person as Carter was.  Granted, Carter proved that being moral in a naive sort of way does not lead to good policy decisions.  Clinton never had any problems with "moral flexibility", but this is actually an asset when it comes to being president.
I think his marriage should stay out of consideration.  Btw, the guy is married to a bitch, what do you expect?  And he is doing some great work in the Human Rights field.
2008-04-19 12:39:47
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

Clinton bombed Iraq and made it the official policy to remove Saddam. He setup the invasion, his wife voted for it.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-19 12:41:32
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6180
Look, the bottom line is this. Pretty much every modern day president or leader of any country will have good and bad points. Some will have bad personal issues, some will have bad press, some will have bad contacts, bad diplomacy, bad economics...etc, etc.. One thing for sure. Most will also have corrupt connections for personal gain but Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr. and Jr., Carter..etc, etc. all did some good things during their leadership.

We can all sit here and argue who was better, who did what and go in circles. No one can say that any recent president was perfect. No one can say that any recent president  or leader didn't have his hand in something viewed as corrupt or for self interest or party interest or his country's interest. Just take a look at what is going on in the world. Is there really any government in this world that is clean, that doesn't look out for itself......NONE!

If you lived in America and were old enough to experience what happened when Carter was alive, like myself, you would understand the animosity a lot of people in America have against Carter. I will say that most of you did not experience that, most of you were probably not even born yet and a great many of you don't or didn't live in this country during that. Carter was not a great president....period! Was he "horrible"...no and now he at least tries to do things that can help others.

I wonder what the view of Bush Jr. will be 30 years from now...if Bush Jr. is traveling around, doing humanitarian work, discussing diplomacy(don't laugh). Will people say that he was a good president because of the work he is doing 30 years later?
2008-04-19 12:45:33
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6180

Kmarion wrote:

Clinton bombed Iraq and made it the official policy to remove Saddam. He setup the invasion, his wife voted for it.
You do know Kmarion that selective memory affects a lot of people here....you can say this over and over as you already have but it will always be Bush's fault. We can even go back to Bush Sr. and see the pressure the Dems were putting on Bush Sr. to take action against Saddam but of course no one wants to see that. Gore was a huge advocate for direct action against Saddam...but Gore somehow escapes the criticism, oh that's right, he is an eco warrior and all is forgiven.
2008-04-19 12:51:29
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Gore was a huge advocate for direct action against Saddam
I remember:

Al Gore blasts George H.W. Bush for ignoring Iraq's
ties to terrorists and disregarding Iraq's attempts to
acquire weapons of mass destruction. (1992)

As mentioned before.

Operation Desert Fox
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-19 13:10:47
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6180
Watching that video, which i have seen many times and remember watching back in the day, just pisses me off. Here is a prominent Dem, liberal pushing for action and saying to the American people that Bush and his administration were covering up what they knew..... Damned if you do, damned if you don't!!!! Furthermore, apparently, Gore had "detailed" factual info that convinced him and his party that Iraq was a terrorist nation and deserved to be labeled so. It seems to me that they were in more of a rush than the Republicans were. If you read these forums at all, most of the "liberal" people would say that "Iraq had terrorist ties" is nonsense.

So to all the "all-knowing" people in this forum, look at what the American people have had to listen to over the last 16+ years. So who is to blame? Gore, Clinton...Dems who pushed for action, labeled Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation, signed legislation to remove Saddam and then bombed Iraq without a UN mandate? or.......

Bush Sr., Bush Jr.....Repubs who pushed for action, labeled Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation, signed legislation to remove Saddam and then bombed Iraq without a UN mandate.....

Hmmmm....funny how that all came out the same....like I said before, there is enough blame to go around but all we hear on these forums is about big bad Bush and the very short term, tunnel vision memory of many of you. I'm neither Republican or Democrat but I am not stupid enough to throw blame at one person when you seriously take a moment and look at the BIG PICTURE.
2008-04-19 13:11:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


Why is Clinton a bad guy?
Clinton was a good president, but his personal life showed his darker side.  He has a very dysfunctional marriage, he's made some pretty sketchy deals (as Whitewater showed us), and his corporate connections were part of what inspired Michael Moore to say, "Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had."

If you look at Clinton's economic policies, he was basically a moderate Republican.  The good part of this was that he started to decrease the size of government.  The bad part was that he promoted so-called free trade agreements at the expense of American jobs.

He was certainly better than Bush, but he was nowhere near as moral of a person as Carter was.  Granted, Carter proved that being moral in a naive sort of way does not lead to good policy decisions.  Clinton never had any problems with "moral flexibility", but this is actually an asset when it comes to being president.
I think his marriage should stay out of consideration.  Btw, the guy is married to a bitch, what do you expect?  And he is doing some great work in the Human Rights field.
It's not his marriage in particular, but the nature of his character that was brought to light with his actions. Yes, he was a good president (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth) but his moral fiber left much to be desired. It's been quite some time since we had a good mixture of the two.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-19 13:52:27
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6706
He gave the Panama Canal to panama.... For free.  The right to build and control the Panama canal was bought by the US in 1904 form Panama.  In addition tot his the US government paid over 10 million dollars anally to the Panamanians.  The building of the Panama canal was done primarily by US workers, and thousands of American lives were lost during its 10 years of construction, mostly to disease.  It has been defended and controlled by the US for almost 100 years.  And then Jimmy Freakin' Carter comes along and gives it to the Panamanian government.  His reasoning for this was that "it was was leading to an upsurge of anti-American feeling in Panama and other Latin American nations".  Oh that makes LOADS OF SENSE!  We paid for it fairly, we built it, then we Give it to a dictatorship government for no other reason than to make people like us.  Now it's going to be taken over by communist China..... And all this because that moron wanted to be more popular.  He effectively gave America's biggest rival one of America's biggest economic assets.  You can't make people like you just by giving them things needlessly all the time.  There will always be people who hate America and what it stands for.  He's just too much of an idealist to be a good president.  I'll admit that he is a kind, charming fellow, but he is also a fool.
2008-04-19 14:08:11
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6757|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Clinton was a good president, but his personal life showed his darker side.  He has a very dysfunctional marriage, he's made some pretty sketchy deals (as Whitewater showed us), and his corporate connections were part of what inspired Michael Moore to say, "Clinton was the best Republican president we've ever had."

If you look at Clinton's economic policies, he was basically a moderate Republican.  The good part of this was that he started to decrease the size of government.  The bad part was that he promoted so-called free trade agreements at the expense of American jobs.

He was certainly better than Bush, but he was nowhere near as moral of a person as Carter was.  Granted, Carter proved that being moral in a naive sort of way does not lead to good policy decisions.  Clinton never had any problems with "moral flexibility", but this is actually an asset when it comes to being president.
I think his marriage should stay out of consideration.  Btw, the guy is married to a bitch, what do you expect?  And he is doing some great work in the Human Rights field.
It's not his marriage in particular, but the nature of his character that was brought to light with his actions. Yes, he was a good president (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth) but his moral fiber left much to be desired. It's been quite some time since we had a good mixture of the two.
His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
2008-04-19 14:15:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

Watching that video, which i have seen many times and remember watching back in the day, just pisses me off. Here is a prominent Dem, liberal pushing for action and saying to the American people that Bush and his administration were covering up what they knew..... Damned if you do, damned if you don't!!!! Furthermore, apparently, Gore had "detailed" factual info that convinced him and his party that Iraq was a terrorist nation and deserved to be labeled so. It seems to me that they were in more of a rush than the Republicans were. If you read these forums at all, most of the "liberal" people would say that "Iraq had terrorist ties" is nonsense.

So to all the "all-knowing" people in this forum, look at what the American people have had to listen to over the last 16+ years. So who is to blame? Gore, Clinton...Dems who pushed for action, labeled Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation, signed legislation to remove Saddam and then bombed Iraq without a UN mandate? or.......

Bush Sr., Bush Jr.....Repubs who pushed for action, labeled Iraq as a terrorist supporting nation, signed legislation to remove Saddam and then bombed Iraq without a UN mandate.....

Hmmmm....funny how that all came out the same....like I said before, there is enough blame to go around but all we hear on these forums is about big bad Bush and the very short term, tunnel vision memory of many of you. I'm neither Republican or Democrat but I am not stupid enough to throw blame at one person when you seriously take a moment and look at the BIG PICTURE.
Clinton's foreign policy also had much to do with why I'm not that fond of him.  I lean more in the isolationist direction, and while I saw Bosnia as a necessary conflict for us to intervene in, I thought Somalia was a mistake, and Iraq was a nation that was being dealt with well enough with air strikes.

Invading Iraq was obviously a bad idea, and I would be blasting Clinton the same as I do Bush if he had been the one to decide to invade it.  The fact that Clinton lobbied to invade Iraq is definitely a mark against him (as well as a mark against many other Democrats).

Foreign policy is one area where I mostly agree with Ron Paul, although I'm not quite as isolationist as he is.  I think we have to intervene sometimes (like in Afghanistan).
2008-04-19 14:15:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6411|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:

His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.

So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?

I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-19 14:18:04
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6621|London, England

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.

So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?

I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.
I'd rather have a sinful guy that is good at his job rather than a fake "praise jesus" family guy that is actually worse for the people than the devil himself
2008-04-19 14:18:29
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


I think his marriage should stay out of consideration.  Btw, the guy is married to a bitch, what do you expect?  And he is doing some great work in the Human Rights field.
It's not his marriage in particular, but the nature of his character that was brought to light with his actions. Yes, he was a good president (I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth) but his moral fiber left much to be desired. It's been quite some time since we had a good mixture of the two.
His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
For the most part, I agree with you.  Carter pretty much proved that.  I'm just saying Clinton is not someone I would trust on a personal level.  I would trust him with most political decisions, but he's not the kind of person I'd want to hang out with (or leave my girlfriend alone with).
2008-04-19 14:20:01
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.

So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?

I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.
I'd be ok with a good leader who's a dick in a personal sense.  I'd argue that both parties are ok with this, when you look at Clinton and Dick Cheney.
2008-04-19 14:20:07
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6621|London, England
Maybe one day we'll find a politician who has both good moral fibres and is also actually good at his job





hah

Not in my lifetime... and I'm still only 18
2008-04-19 14:22:26
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6706
Jimmy Carter cared more about the rest of the world than he did America.
2008-04-19 14:23:37
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Jimmy Carter cared more about the rest of the world than he did America.
Maybe...  but it's hard to say whether that's better or worse than a president that only cares about his circle of corporate friends (Bush).
2008-04-19 14:53:44
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6601|132 and Bush

Turquoise wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Jimmy Carter cared more about the rest of the world than he did America.
Maybe...  but it's hard to say whether that's better or worse than a president that only cares about his circle of corporate friends (Bush).
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2008-04-19 15:25:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6651|USA
Jimmy Carter started the quest to PUSSIFY America. It is damage that has carried forward to today's terrorist attacks. Read on.

http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2984
2008-04-19 15:30:02
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6405|North Carolina

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Jimmy Carter cared more about the rest of the world than he did America.
Maybe...  but it's hard to say whether that's better or worse than a president that only cares about his circle of corporate friends (Bush).
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
True enough...  but again, which is worse?  A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?

EDIT:  That website is about as valid as moveon.org, lowing.

Last edited by Turquoise (2008-04-19 15:31:03)

2008-04-19 15:50:03
imortal
Member
+240|6665|Austin, TX

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


Maybe...  but it's hard to say whether that's better or worse than a president that only cares about his circle of corporate friends (Bush).
They all care about their corporate friends. Even the Democratic majority in Congress cashing in on lobbyist.
True enough...  but again, which is worse?  A president who cares too much about the world outside of America or a president who only cares to extent of how it affects multinational corporations and war profiteering?

EDIT:  That website is about as valid as moveon.org, lowing.
Well, I personally feel that if you elect a person to be the President of the United States, and by that I mean the leader of this (well, my) country, that president should take the priorities of the country he is running to be of the highest priority.  Sorry to the rest of the world, but I want my leader to place my country above all the others. 

I am sure that, deep down, many of you would like your leaders to look after your nation's intrests as well.  If you didn't, you could just adopt the UN as the rulers of your nations.
2008-04-19 16:28:04
Deadmonkiefart
Floccinaucinihilipilificator
+177|6706
Clinton didn't have very good morals, but he was a fairly good president, and that's what matters.
2008-04-19 16:33:50
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6757|Argentina

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

His moral fiber?  He was a good president and that matters a lot more than his morals IMO.
I never said moral character means more than job performance, but I don't believe that it means any less, either.

So you're fine with having a craven, morally depraved person running your country, so long as they do a good job?

I'm not saying that Clinton was necessarily either of those things, but moral character DOES matter...no matter how much the Clintons tried to convince the rest of us that it doesn't.
I DO think morality is important, I just don't think he wasn't that bad in that field.  If he's real good at his job, let him have some fun.  What a big deal.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard